Federal environment program

[myata]

Am I the only one who feels that this government's "the last government..." together with "we will introduce ..." adages in all things environmental are getting somewhat stale? I mean, it's been a year. It's neigher fresh, no funny anymore. And I want be fair here. Indeed, the last goverment could and should have done better. But this government's constant droning about past years combined with apparent lack of any real change now causes certain discomfort. And that causes the urge to revisit the issue - from a critical point of view.

First, has it really been "13 years"? Liberals came to power in 1993, having inherited economy in recession and massive debt. Canada signed Kyoto in 1998, around the time the economy started to turn around and ratified in in the end of 2002. OK, five years seem like a lot of slack to evaluate, discuss and ratify such an important document. They should have done it in 2-3 years. That leaves about five (not 13!) years to develop a plan and start implementing it.

Now I agree their plan was somewhat pathetic (one tonne challenge, enviro-guide and voluntary industry consultations is all what I recall of it), but we can give them a credit for being the first. So let's give them a year for that. The final score will be:

Liberals (4 years of environment action): information compaigns; home efficiency improvement; consultations on voluntary industry caps; in the later years, massive investments in municipalities; and finally, Kyoto implementation plan, developed in Martin's final days (of which I can't recall much other than it existed).

PC (1 year and counting): cancelled Liberal programs; caused much discontent in the earlier days by unclear position on Kyoto (remember Rona?); introduced "Clean Air Act" without any immediate action to "clean the air"; reinstated some of the old Liberal programs; promised some real caps some time soon.

Somehow, I don't see much reason to get extatic about either of the two.

Finally, the really important question is, what can and should really be done? In this CBC report, J.Baird rejected any notion of carbon tax or carbon trading. Having reiterated, again, the promise to come up with real targets for the industry, soon.

But what are these caps, even if they are mandary? Are they going to be enforced? And how? If caps are applied uniformely with strict enforcement, wouldn't it be like, carbon tax? And if they are introduced without enforcement, what's the point? Other than to blubber about real caps and kept promises, of course. Because that (caps) and not real GHG reductions is what Baird and CPC are promising us. And so far I'm not impressed.

[geoffrey]

Carbon trading = another money grab for Quebec.

Do you actually think Canada can have an economy above 2nd world status without the oil sands? It's not possible, a poor Alberta means a poor Canada. Ottawa has no choice but to support the oil sands fully.

I'd start looking at other ways to deal with emissions.

The intensity approach is best. GHG emissions per unit of production. Reducing overall emissions means reducing economic output... where as per barrel emissions being cut 10% isn't unreasonable.

We'll have cleaner oil and a sustainable economy. Cutting the oil sands output by 1/3 is not a practical solution unless you enjoy living in poverty.

[myata]

I beg to differ on that. Check around this country. Only Alberta, and to lesser degree, Saskatchevan and NF have oil or gas as major component of their revenues. Everybody else survives without, somehow.

Even better example is Europe. Only a few countries there (Norway?) have large resources of oil. Most do fine without.

The problem with the "intensity" targets is, of course, that they won't result in any actual reductions. Which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole enterprise. Because you can't argue for others to reduce their waste while you're busy getting rich developing oil sands.

[blueblood]

Carbon trading = another money grab for Quebec.

Do you actually think Canada can have an economy above 2nd world status without the oil sands? It's not possible, a poor Alberta means a poor Canada. Ottawa has no choice but to support the oil sands fully.

I'd start looking at other ways to deal with emissions.

The intensity approach is best. GHG emissions per unit of production. Reducing overall emissions means reducing economic output... where as per barrel emissions being cut 10% isn't unreasonable.

We'll have cleaner oil and a sustainable economy. Cutting the oil sands output by 1/3 is not a practical solution unless you enjoy living in poverty.

I checked out Ireland on Wiki, now that is a country. They are ranked higher for living standards, lower unemployment, pound for pound more wealthy than we are, have no natural resources, have more foreign investment than we do, and on top of that have enough money to fund post secondary education. As a country we should be emberrassed considering of all the advantages we have over them.

[Wilber]

Finally, the really important question is, what can and should really be done? In this CBC report, J.Baird rejected any notion of carbon tax or carbon trading. Having reiterated, again, the promise to come up with real targets for the industry, soon.

But what are these caps, even if they are mandary? Are they going to be enforced? And how? If caps are applied uniformely with strict enforcement, wouldn't it be like, carbon tax? And if they are introduced without enforcement, what's the point? Other than to blubber about real caps and kept promises, of course. Because that (caps) and not real GHG reductions is what Baird and CPC are promising us. And so far I'm not impressed.

Wow! It's been a whole year. The environment wasn't even much of an election issue the last time around. The Liberals signed the agreement and made their promises. Little or nothing came of them after over a decade of majority government. All of a sudden, everyone has got religion. It is time to give someone else a try. It will be interesting to see if they can do anything with a minority. Since everyone all of a sudden thinks this is such a critical issue that must be dealt with yesterday, I wonder if both sides of the house can put politics aside and do something positive for the country for a change. Ya right, what am I saying?

[Wilber]

Even better example is Europe. Only a few countries there (Norway?) have large resources of oil. Most do fine without.

The problem with the "intensity" targets is, of course, that they won't result in any actual reductions. Which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole enterprise. Because you can't argue for others to reduce their waste while you're busy getting rich developing oil sands.

You mean none of those countries use oil?

[jdobbin]

Finally, the really important question is, what can and should really be done? In this CBC report, J.Baird rejected any notion of carbon tax or carbon trading. Having reiterated, again, the promise to come up with real targets for the industry, soon.

But what are these caps, even if they are mandary? Are they going to be enforced? And how? If caps are applied uniformely with strict enforcement, wouldn't it be like, carbon tax? And if they are introduced without enforcement, what's the point? Other than to blubber about real caps and kept promises, of course. Because that (caps) and not real GHG reductions is what Baird and CPC are promising us. And so far I'm not impressed.

Baird is postponing a decision on the environment to the point that I think that we might not see it made before an election.

What is surprising is that the NDP doesn't seem to have been up front with any questions to Baird on Kyoto?

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/179619

NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen said later he still hopes for compromise.

“I don’t take his testimony today as definitive on what their bottom lines are going to be. I think today was a partisan exercise to try to establish some narrow perspective on the debate.”

The NDP could be badly hurt if they get something that is less than what they've been asking for.

[geoffrey]

I beg to differ on that. Check around this country. Only Alberta, and to lesser degree, Saskatchevan and NF have oil or gas as major component of their revenues. Everybody else survives without, somehow.

Ya, on Alberta transfer dollars. ~$4500 per capita from Alberta. ~$1200 from Ontario. The rest of the provinces take.

So ya, Ontario has a huge benefit of being the financial centre... in Toronto. You'll find the rest of the province is actually quite sub-standard.

Ottawa cannot survive at it's current cradle to grave welfare spending levels without the massive inflow of cash from Alberta, Alberta companies and oil related businesses elsewhere (Sarnia is a refining centre for Alberta gas).

Alberta takes many Easterners off unemployment rolls, allowing their government to cut taxes and encourage business growth. No oil sands means more Newfies at home unemployed.

People, especially Quebecois, are far too quick to kill the hen that lays the golden eggs.

I checked out Ireland on Wiki, now that is a country. They are ranked higher for living standards, lower unemployment, pound for pound more wealthy than we are, have no natural resources, have more foreign investment than we do, and on top of that have enough money to fund post secondary education. As a country we should be emberrassed considering of all the advantages we have over them.

Absolutely. Most of this is because of our ancient tax policy. Canada is no longer a competitive nation, we don't (never did) justify our G8 position. We're a joke essientially... well, outside Alberta.

Until people get this, we'll just go on blindly accepting our substandard way of life. Canada has enourmous potential, but no one seems willing to abandon illogical, outdated positions.

[myata]

I see. If it weren't for the godsend of Alberta, we'd better all committed collective suicide. There wouldn't simply anything else left for us to do. Just demise and despair. Seriously.

[margrace]

And this idea of self government is pretty preposturious when you consider that Inco of Sudbury is in court for illegal emissions. The fines could be $30 million.

Just Check the Sudbury Star. Or CJBC.

The Tar Sands are a disaster and the sooner we admit it the better. Oh yes it is giving High paying jobs to lots of people, my son, my cousins sons, and finally my grandson. But is it worth the cost. I think not.

[Wilber]

I see, the people who produce oil are the bad guys and the people who need, buy and consume it are the good guys. Now I've got it.

[scribblet]

This is becoming the alter to which Liberals are now bowing, at the expense of our economy.

The NP has a series of articles, I havn't read the all yet, will have to do a bit at a time.

Statistics Needed-The Deniers part 1:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...9cd20bed2f6&k=0

Warming is real-and has benefits-part 2:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...7eeec46d1fc&k=0

The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science-part 3:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...31a1380121a&k=0

Polar scientists on thin ice-part 4:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...02b95c45dcf&k=0

The original denier: into the cold-part 5:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...9de085af353&k=0

The Sun moves climate change- part 6:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...f60aa332f1f&k=0

Will the Sun cool us?- part 7:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...e9eeb015777&k=0

The limits of predictability- part 8:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...07f1dee479f&k=0

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming- part 9:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...359a5c7f723&k=0

Limited role for CO2- part 10:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...6e0f112aeb5&k=0

[Leafless]

Carbon trading = another money grab for Quebec.

Do you actually think Canada can have an economy above 2nd world status without the oil sands? It's not possible, a poor Alberta means a poor Canada. Ottawa has no choice but to support the oil sands fully.

I'd start looking at other ways to deal with emissions.

The intensity approach is best. GHG emissions per unit of production. Reducing overall emissions means reducing economic output... where as per barrel emissions being cut 10% isn't unreasonable.

We'll have cleaner oil and a sustainable economy. Cutting the oil sands output by 1/3 is not a practical solution unless you enjoy living in poverty.

I checked out Ireland on Wiki, now that is a country. They are ranked higher for living standards, lower unemployment, pound for pound more wealthy than we are, have no natural resources, have more foreign investment than we do, and on top of that have enough money to fund post secondary education. As a country we should be emberrassed considering of all the advantages we have over them.

The Celtic tiger could turn out to be a paper tiger.

Demographics, financial assistance by the European Union, LOW WAGES and luck of the Irish are the reason Ireland is where it is at today.

But most countries in the world would gladly trade places with Canada to have the U.S. as its neighbor.

[blueblood]

The Celtic tiger could turn out to be a paper tiger.

Demographics, financial assistance by the European Union, LOW WAGES and luck of the Irish are the reason Ireland is where it is at today.

But most countries in the world would gladly trade places with Canada to have the U.S. as its neighbor.

They would probably do a better job at it than Canada would too.

[jdobbin]

This is becoming the alter to which Liberals are now bowing, at the expense of our economy.

The NP has a series of articles, I havn't read the all yet, will have to do a bit at a time.

Many of the people profiled in this series of column are not actual deniers. You should read Avro's response to the National Post stories.

[jdobbin]

They would probably do a better job at it than Canada would too.

How so? On regular taxes, Canada is not that far away from Ireland. We need improvement on how taxes are collected but the misery index has us close to Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_t...blic_of_Ireland

Our corporate taxes are higher but we are not out of the ballpark with the rest of the industrialized world.

I often think it is easier to run a place where the population is small and compact. Ireland has six million people and is an island.

[geoffrey]

It's also easier to run an economy when you have the largest deposit of oil in the world and have over 100 connecting road and railways with the world's largest economy.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Canada is slipping down, down, down. We've got to do something. Every possible factor works in our favour, but we squander it.

2nd best taxes aren't good enough. Companies invest where they are the lowest, bottom line. If we don't have the lowest taxes, companies will go to wherever they are lower. The other costs of business are relatively equal in the big scheme of things these days (with some exceptions... US health care for example).

[guyser]

I see. If it weren't for the godsend of Alberta, we'd better all committed collective suicide. There wouldn't simply anything else left for us to do. Just demise and despair. Seriously.

I guess I will bow down and light a candle for my masters in Alberta ?

Just remember Geoffrey , you are not the horse, but the cart. Important, very much so, but not at the exclusion of all others

[geoffrey]

I guess I will bow down and light a candle for my masters in Alberta ?

Just remember Geoffrey , you are not the horse, but the cart. Important, very much so, but not at the exclusion of all others

2/3 of the jobs in Canada last month were created by 7 mil in population, being Alberta and BC.

Yup, we're the horse.

[jdobbin]

2/3 of the jobs in Canada last month were created by 7 mil in population, being Alberta and BC.

Yup, we're the horse.

Resources continue to be strong but the results for the entire country save for Newfoundland were fairly strong.

Quebec had good numbers. Ontario had some great numbers for female workers being hired.

I don't see these good numbers as one region against another. It was a good day for the whole country.

What we need now is to see some better results in GDP and productivity.

An industrial strategy would help too.

http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/st...BN/ctv-business

For example, supporting tobacco farmers in Diane Finely's riding is probably a poor strategy given the decline in demand for the product as per the above article.

[Wilber]

Numbers out today, BC unemployment 4.3%. 5% is considered full employment. Tim Horton's is advertising for employees on the radio offering among other things a pension plan and medical benefits. London Drugs is advertising for employees on their sales receipts and as far as retail outlets go, it has always been a good place to work with decent pay and good benefits. That's one reason I am a loyal customer.

I can't see why any Canadian would be upset when a part of the country is doing really well. After receiving equalization payments for a few years, we will be back to making them. I think I would rather have it that way. Why would any Canadian want it otherwise?

[geoffrey]

Numbers out today, BC unemployment 4.3%. 5% is considered full employment. Tim Horton's is advertising for employees on the radio offering among other things a pension plan and medical benefits. London Drugs is advertising for employees on their sales receipts and as far as retail outlets go, it has always been a good place to work with decent pay and good benefits. That's one reason I am a loyal customer.

You think that 4.3% is bad for a shortage, Calgary hit 2.3% in Jan.

And our participation rate is a bazillion times higher than anywhere else in Canada, we've got no more workers, we are maxed out. Send us more Newfies!

[jdobbin]

And our participation rate is a bazillion times higher than anywhere else in Canada, we've got no more workers, we are maxed out. Send us more Newfies!

Build more housing for them. People who have no homes find it difficult to work no matter how good the opportunities are.

[geoffrey]

Build more housing for them. People who have no homes find it difficult to work no matter how good the opportunities are.

Catch 22. We need them mostly to build homes.

[jdobbin]

Catch 22. We need them mostly to build homes.

The government has to make the commitment for apartments rather than huge sub-divisions which take more time to build.

It will be one of the problems of managing growth the next few years. Catch 22 won't cut it after a while. And if every home is 300,000, it won't support the entry level worker at all.