Canada can get rich by going green: Dion

[Ricki Bobbi]

Seriously though, lets actually get back to the topic. The point I was trying to make before I skewed off in to my tangent is that I feel Dion is going after the Conservative base by showing them that they can have their cake (Prevent Climate change and certain death) and eat it too (Make money while they're doing it.)

He hasn't submitted a plan yet. So he gets a pass for now.

But as long as he says he plans to meet the Kyoto targets then qutoes like the following are misleading and totally unrealistic.

If companies face "strong and fair rules requiring a steady reduction of emissions over time," they respond with the needed innovation and investment, he asserted.

We don't have time for emissions to be reduced fairly under Kyoto.

[HoratioCaine]

Seriously though, lets actually get back to the topic. The point I was trying to make before I skewed off in to my tangent is that I feel Dion is going after the Conservative base by showing them that they can have their cake (Prevent Climate change and certain death) and eat it too (Make money while they're doing it.)

He hasn't submitted a plan yet. So he gets a pass for now.

But as long as he says he plans to meet the Kyoto targets then qutoes like the following are misleading and totally unrealistic.

If companies face "strong and fair rules requiring a steady reduction of emissions over time," they respond with the needed innovation and investment, he asserted.

We don't have time for emissions to be reduced fairly under Kyoto.

I'd argue that we don't have time to wait. Did you ever see An Inconvient Truth? I mean it starring Al Gore aside it is an informative movie.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I'd argue that we don't have time to wait. Did you ever see An Inconvient Truth? I mean it starring Al Gore aside it is an informative movie.

At what cost to meet Kyoto?

Do you favour buying emission credits if it is found that we can't meet the targets without seriously hurting the economy, if we can meet them at all?

If Dion says he will definitely not buy credits, under any circumstances, that could win him a lot of votes.

Yes I saw an inconvenient truth. Yes, I believe global warming exists. Yes, I think the Conservatives are taking steps in the right direction.

No, I don't think Kyoto is the right way to go. No I don't care what Dion named his dog.

[BC_chick]

It's insanity. This whole "buying credits" scam is nothing more than forcing "rich" countries to increase their foreign aid.

No.... it's a way to make sure that collectively, we stay within the limits of what it reasonable for this earth. If it helps out poorer countries, then that's just a bonus.

[HoratioCaine]

I see what you're saying Ricki, but you keep saying "Cost" and what I'm saying is: What the Hell difference would dollars make if the Earth becomes uninhabitable? I'd much rather have a massive debt (which we already have anyway thanks to Mulroney and his boys) and be alive than have no debt and be dead.

[Argus]

And yes, Canada can/could have met the Kyoto targets within 1-2 years. (This from the Pembina Institute.) One thing Steve could do is borrow from Dion's policy to use taxes as an incentive on energy policy that rewards clean, or cleaner, projects, and punishes dirty ones.

Meh. I call bullshit on that. We can reduce our emissions by 40% in two years? Sure. Okay. Let's hear the plan. Does it involve shutting down all industries and living in caves?

[Argus]

"Yes, Canada will cut megatonnes of emissions, but we will also make megatonnes of money," he told a joint breakfast meeting of the Toronto Board of Trade and the Economic Club of Toronto.

Someone should tell Dion to cut that line. It's dumb and with his accent, it sounds even worse.

Dion's forte is not going around blabbering about a get-rich-quick scheme.

It's a solid strategy. People who vote Conservative usually only care about two things, one of them being money. (The other being forcing their values on others) Courting those voters by showing them they can be responsible and profitable at the same time is smart.

Except conservative voters tend to be smarter than liberal voters, and not as prone to believe bullshit fairy tales as you people.

[Argus]

Seriously though, lets actually get back to the topic. The point I was trying to make before I skewed off in to my tangent is that I feel Dion is going after the Conservative base by showing them that they can have their cake (Prevent Climate change and certain death) and eat it too (Make money while they're doing it.)

Uhm, I don't know how old you are, but this has ALWAYS been the Liberal message - on every subject - to everyone. You CAN have your cake and eat it too! Yes, you can! Trust us!

After watching decades of such lies, most of us with an awareness of reality and a long memory stop listening.

[Argus]

It's insanity. This whole "buying credits" scam is nothing more than forcing "rich" countries to increase their foreign aid.

No.... it's a way to make sure that collectively, we stay within the limits of what it reasonable for this earth. If it helps out poorer countries, then that's just a bonus.

If you want to ante up and deliver extra money from your pocket to shithole countries run by thieving murderers that's up to you. I can think of better things to spend my money on.

[HoratioCaine]

Except conservative voters tend to be smarter than liberal voters.

Well, that was well thought out analysis. Ricki? You got on me for attacking a group of voters. SICK EM! SICK EM!

Uhm, I don't know how old you are, but this has ALWAYS been the Liberal message - on every subject - to everyone. You CAN have your cake and eat it too! Yes, you can! Trust us!

After watching decades of such lies, most of us with an awareness of reality and a long memory stop listening.

Really? You don't listen? But you seemed so informed.

If you want to ante up and deliver extra money from your pocket to shithole countries run by thieving murderers that's up to you. I can think of better things to spend my money on.

I hope you enjoy drowning, or perhaps baking to death in 60-70 degree heat.

[Saturn]

Except conservative voters tend to be smarter than liberal voters, and not as prone to believe bullshit fairy tales as you people.

Conservative voters are a bunch of loonies but there are two types of them:

- the minority are wealthy and connected to the Conservative and/or Liberal parties. They know they will benefit from lower taxes, more subsidies for their industries, more favourable treatment of investment income, etc.

- the majority are less educated, rural, greedy, social conservative dummies, who imagine themselves wealthy and figure that they will gain from handing out tax breaks and subsidies to the above group.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Except conservative voters tend to be smarter than liberal voters.

Well, that was well thought out analysis. Ricki? You got on me for attacking a group of voters. SICK EM! SICK EM!

Horatio the correct word in that situation would be sic. i.e. sic 'em.

Your misuse of a word with a completely different meaning proves argus' pont.

[geoffrey]

I hope you enjoy drowning, or perhaps baking to death in 60-70 degree heat.

People like you are the reason we have global warming deniers. Exaggeration just ruins all credibility.

We'll never have 60-70 degree heat.

[Borg]

It's insanity. This whole "buying credits" scam is nothing more than forcing "rich" countries to increase their foreign aid.

No.... it's a way to make sure that collectively, we stay within the limits of what it reasonable for this earth. If it helps out poorer countries, then that's just a bonus.

Well, I really think you need to re-think your comment.

Money to China, India and Pakistan - three of the largest recipients.

They all have the following:

Modern navy

Modern Air Force

Modern Army

Nuclear weapons program

Space program

And their economies are on the upswing.

They are richer than we are.

Their populations are bursting at the seams.

And you want to finance them?

There is absolutely NO FRIGGING BONUS!!! here.

They should be sending aide to this poor one horse country called Canada.

We are robbing ourselves to pay someone else for the right to burn our own fuel and run our own economy.

The next time you think - "Boy I wish the government would fix this road", or "I wonder if education is going to be affordable for my kids / grandkids" - remember it is people who supported Kyoto that sent billions out of this country to another country - just so we could burn oil to heat our homes or burn fuel to deliver those groceries to Prince Alberta Sask, or burn coal so we could read a book at night - think money sent to another country rather than our own - think national debt not reduced - think less medical care - think lousy military - think less housing - think less roads - think more expensive education - all because we sent billions off to some other non-deserving country just so we could burn our own oil!

There is NO BONUS in taking money from this ountry and GIVING it to another - it is pure unadulterated rape of our bank accounts and our kids bank accounts.

Rich counties?

India, China and Pakistan could buy Canada many times over - do not forget that. And they are major recipients - do not foget that. Never send money out of country until you have the problems in country solved. Why work against yourself?

And for heaven sake do not send the money to Africa - it goes into despot bank accounts and never gets to where it needs to go - Trillions according to the latest news - spent and wasted in Africa.

Keep the money at home. Trash kyoto.

Borg

[HoratioCaine]

I hope you enjoy drowning, or perhaps baking to death in 60-70 degree heat.

People like you are the reason we have global warming deniers. Exaggeration just ruins all credibility.

We'll never have 60-70 degree heat.

Yeah, cuz the whole world is depending on me for their info.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Yeah, cuz the whole world is depending on me for their info.

Again with the obstinance. Maybe it would go better for you if you just told the truth.

[Keepitsimple]

A recent "pre-release" of the IPCC report shows that it may be even more confusing than the 2001 report. The report said:

In 2001, the panel said the world's average temperature would increase somewhere between about 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius and the sea level would rise between 10 and 89 centimetres by the year 2100. The 2007 report will likely have a smaller range of numbers for both predictions, Pachauri and other scientists said.

The future is bleak, scientists said.

One of the most "fearful" aspects of IPCC reports has been this projected increase in Sea Levels. Keep in mind that sea levels have been rising for the last several hundred years at a constant rate of about 20cc per century or between 1 and 3mm per year. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#_note-0

The 2001 IPCC report indicates that Sea Levels may be affected in a manner that could reduce the "rise" by 50% or increase them 4 fold (10-89cc). This obviously means that there is a wide divergence of opinion in this area alone - and confirms that the "science is evolving". Of course, what gets reported? Why, Al Gore's one meter rise of the oceans of course. Has there really been any mention that some data shows that Sea Level rise may actually slow over the next 100 years? All we so called "skeptics" want is a balanced presentation of the facts. There is something going on - let's face it and adapt to it.

[geoffrey]

It'd be nice to have the ocean on the other side of Banff National Park. Bring on the heat baby!

[hiti]

And yes, Canada can/could have met the Kyoto targets within 1-2 years. (This from the Pembina Institute.) One thing Steve could do is borrow from Dion's policy to use taxes as an incentive on energy policy that rewards clean, or cleaner, projects, and punishes dirty ones.

Meh. I call bullshit on that. We can reduce our emissions by 40% in two years? Sure. Okay. Let's hear the plan. Does it involve shutting down all industries and living in caves?

What two years you talking about?

The Liberal Project Green (that Steve borrowed from) was to meet the Kyoto targets by 2012. Canada was on track to meet these targets by 2015 at the latest.

And where do you get the 40%? Emission have increased by 24% from the 1990 levels. And have been holding steady.

[hiti]

It's insanity. This whole "buying credits" scam is nothing more than forcing "rich" countries to increase their foreign aid.

No.... it's a way to make sure that collectively, we stay within the limits of what it reasonable for this earth. If it helps out poorer countries, then that's just a bonus.

If you want to ante up and deliver extra money from your pocket to shithole countries run by thieving murderers that's up to you. I can think of better things to spend my money on.

How about shifting your money to companies right here in Canada? We all know that some companies will have a harder time and take longer to get their emissions under control. They can buy credits in Canada from companies who have met or exceeded their targets.

China has already made some efforts to reduce it's CO2 emissions. For example between 1997 and 2001 when "by switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent ". China also signed Kyoto and is expected to no longer be exempted from the CO2 emission targets.

American emissions of carbon dioxide in 2003 would have been 6% higher if the United States had manufactured the products that it imported from China. Meanwhile, China's 2003 emissions would have been 14% lower had it not produced goods for the United States.

"These results show the importance of world trade in accounting for the emissions that drive climate change," says Shui Bin, an environmental policy analyst who authored the Energy Policy paper with geochemist Robert Harriss. Their research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor.

The world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases are the United States (about 25% of the global total) and China (about 15%). The Shui and Harriss study implies that the United States is indirectly responsible for even more carbon dioxide than widely perceived.

On the other side what do we have. The US is by far the biggest per capita CO2 emitter in the world at 5.37 per capita (Canada is 3.76). It's CO2 emissions have continually gone up since 1990. And it hasn't ratified Kyoto and is not expected to set CO2 emission targets in the near future.