Opposition forces Kyoto bill,

[madmax]

If Harper were smart he would have made it a confidence bill and let the government fall then fought the election on kyoto.

He could have done that, or he could have just pulled out of Kyoto, if he didn't believe in it or the science like yourself. He didn't before so what's changed? He is either governing by polls, or should fight the election by polls.

I expect there is going to be another GHG emmissions program that will grow out of Kyoto. It will become the new standard.

[madmax]

There were posts on other environmental thread here this week,

that showed in fact, thatwe were close to meeting the targerts. 80% was the figure.

Weren't those your own posts?

[scribblet]

No we should pull out because the agreement was biased against Canada, amounted to a massive socialist transfer program to Europe and the 3rd world, and we have no hope in hell of even coming close.

What is exactly that Kyoto supporters feel is fair about such a massive giveaway of our cash, and why on earth should we support such a ridiculous concept; especially when it the recipients of our cash are increasing their emissions.

Did you know that there are numerous pieces of legislation that passed the house and the Senate over the

past several years but never received royal assent and were thus never passed into law - it is possible that this bill could also stay in limbo until the next election.

This bill is nothing but a political game, too bad someone can't come come up with a brutally honest plan that outlines the full cost of total compliance, showing that it would be economic suicide to pass it. Then let the opposition tell us where the money will come from and which programs will have to cut to do it, and how they'll create new jobs.

And no, there are no posts showing that we are close to meeting the targerts.

[madmax]

What is exactly that Kyoto supporters feel is fair about such a massive giveaway of our cash, and why on earth should we support such a ridiculous concept; especially when it the recipients of our cash are increasing their emissions.

Why was nothing done to meet these targets?

Oh look, I got a credit card, I am wracking up debt and letting the interest build. Now If I wait 10 years and then add up the costs, I will go broke, sorry can't pay? Was that our plan when we signed the treaty?

[scribblet]

What is exactly that Kyoto supporters feel is fair about such a massive giveaway of our cash, and why on earth should we support such a ridiculous concept; especially when it the recipients of our cash are increasing their emissions.

Why was nothing done to meet these targets?

Oh look, I got a credit card, I am wracking up debt and letting the interest build. Now If I wait 10 years and then add up the costs, I will go broke, sorry can't pay? Was that our plan when we signed the treaty?

Guess you'll have to ask the Liberals that one, so far we know, no plan, it was all political posturing, besides all this has been said in umpteen other threads.

I'm not saying we shouldn't clean up our act, but NO Kyoto and no giving away our cash for Credits to China or elsewhere. We do it at the pace and cost best for Canada.

[madmax]

Dion shows up with Green Hats and Scarfes and the Liberals bought into this myth.

The Liberals saw fear and opportunity when the Green Party Candidate ran roughshod over the incredibly strong 2 term Former Mayor and the Former Councillor of the CPC and NDP respectively and nearly toppled their Candidate in a byelection of a seat which they held for decades. Once again playing to polls, the Liberals have jumped in to become the environmental crusaders. The only ones to get it done. And all this, since the by election.

Like their fight against Free Trade, GST, Wages and Price Controlls, they merely adopt the oppositions party platform and sit.

Sometimes other parties like to sit and think.

The liberals like to sit.

If the Liberals are going to fight an election on Kyoto, they are going to lose seats.

The Conservatives can fight an election on Kyoto from any position and it will be a position of strength compared to the Liberals.

They can overstate the costs and it cannot be challenged by the Liberals.

They can implement something smaller in scope and it cannot be challenged by the Liberals.

These new environmental crusaders, didn't do anything. The only thing they wish to do is get onboard the #1 issue that gripped the electorate in a few short months and take this issue away from the CPC, Greens and NDP.

It isn't going to work.

Was this bill Grandstanding by the Liberals?

Why are the Liberals stalling in committee on the Clean Air act ?

Instead of playing to the public the Liberals would be better off putting their efforts into getting something done.

Clearly the two main parties are going to make a sideshow of this instead of any kind of action.

It's a game of scoring points amongst one another. The CPC know the Liberals aren't serious about the environment.

[Borg]

Dion shows up with Green Hats and Scarfes and the Liberals bought into this myth.

..........

Clearly the two main parties are going to make a sideshow of this instead of any kind of action.

It's a game of scoring points amongst one another. The CPC know the Liberals aren't serious about the environment.

Your last comment is bang on the money.

Borg

[Wilber]

Ah, now Doonesbury is science.

The left doesn't generalize? Give me a break. What the hell are you doing right now? Enough of this nonsense.

The left hasn't discredited scientists. Enough of your nonsense. Unless you believe that the left uses science as a religion.

People like to call themselves liberals because they believe that they are somehow more tolerant and accepting. There are many who call themselves liberals who are just as willing to generalize, marginalize and label anyone who questions their version of the truth as any fascist or religious fundamentalist.

[jdobbin]

People like to call themselves liberals because they believe that they are somehow more tolerant and accepting. There are many who call themselves liberals who are just as willing to generalize, marginalize and label anyone who questions their version of the truth as any fascist or religious fundamentalist.

I haven't called anyone a fascist or religious fundamentalist. I have no problems with conservatives who have questions about the economics or social implications of global warming or any other area of science. I do have problems with discrediting scientists in general, especially when it is done by people who have no peer reviewed work to show of their own.

Harper's Conservatives have done an amazing turnaround and have said they now believe in the science of global warming. They are still inching along about doing anything about it. They can justify it partly on the Liberal record but they'll have to offer something fairly meaningful to convince their NDP partner not to reject it.

[jdobbin]

Was this bill Grandstanding by the Liberals?

If it was grandstanding, why did the NDP and BQ vote for it?

They voted for it because their own membership will not think kindly on rejecting Kyoto.

I don't think the next election will be fought solely on the environment. In a few weeks, it might be fought on Afghanistan, growing evidence of a further shake-up in manufacturing, daycare or any other number of issues.

[Topaz]

Why doesn't Harper do what he did for child care..... let the provinces do it and give the money to do it. I just wonder how Alberta would bring down their pollution??? I heard that the US is planning to build 19 coal-fired generators for hydro and ALL that pollutions will come up to Canada in the summer winds!

[Argus]

As opposed to what the Liberals didn't do for 10 years?

The issue was on the backburner in people's minds. It has only been in the last year or so that the public has put huge pressure on every major industrial government.

The public? You mean the media. This has been pushed and pushed and pushed by the media. It's become a cause celebre over the past year, and few of their stories have contained much in the way of accuracy in reporting. So when pollsters ask the public the public, of course, responds that they're concerned over Global Warming.

But that support is a mile wide and a half inch deep. Few of them know much about it, know little or nothing about Kyoto, and have no idea what costs might be associated with any of it. If there are costs, they assume they will be just another part of the government budget - that, in effect, instead of spending a billion on roads somewhere, or natives, the government will spend it on this. Very few are ready to commit to real action on their part, much less suffer a heavy personal financial cost.

If the right wing defence for doing nothing is that the Liberals did it first, then they aren't going to last the long. They promised change.

I'm not saying do nothing, but what I am saying is that even if we half kill ourselves doing everything we possibly can it will make virtually no difference. And even that assumes that the reason for the upsurge in temperatures people are calling "Global Warming" really is related to increasing CO2s in the atmosphere - which has not been proven, or that the results will be as dire as some of the hysterical whiners is predicting - which is even further from being proven.

The only way that we are really going to control our emissions is with increasing technology over the next fifty, sixty years. It's just not going to happen today.

[Argus]

The debate on climate change has been very strong for 20 years amongst scientists. The fact that there isn't a line up of top scientists supporting the anti global warming supporters is troubling.

I agree. But the right wing looks to discredit scientists in general by saying that their science is imprecise so that they can discredit science that they don't like such as smoking causes cancer or the evolution.

Are you suggesting the science on this issue IS precise?

[Argus]

To start with, I do know people who vote on the right who are on both sides of this issue. I assume there are people on the left who are also capable of thinking for themselves and are also on both sides of the issue. Your comment just shows that you do exactly what you accuse the right of doing. You reject what doesn't fit your view. You choose which science you will worship and discredit the rest. There is no such thing as the final chapter in science. Newton had the last word in physics until Einstein came along. I don't reject any of it, I am just skeptical of evangelists from either end of the scientific or political spectrum regardless of what they are selling.

I don't doubt that there are people on the right that believe in science. However, I still haven't seen anything you've said to indicate that the left has done anything to discredit scientists the way that the right has.

I believe in science. I believe in it so much that when scientists spend years producing a report - but then let non-scientists, so-called (policy makers) write the summary - and then spend a few months adjusting the report to match the summary.... I laugh out loud.

[jdobbin]

The public? You mean the media. This has been pushed and pushed and pushed by the media. It's become a cause celebre over the past year, and few of their stories have contained much in the way of accuracy in reporting. So when pollsters ask the public the public, of course, responds that they're concerned over Global Warming.

But that support is a mile wide and a half inch deep. Few of them know much about it, know little or nothing about Kyoto, and have no idea what costs might be associated with any of it. If there are costs, they assume they will be just another part of the government budget - that, in effect, instead of spending a billion on roads somewhere, or natives, the government will spend it on this. Very few are ready to commit to real action on their part, much less suffer a heavy personal financial cost.

I'm not saying do nothing, but what I am saying is that even if we half kill ourselves doing everything we possibly can it will make virtually no difference. And even that assumes that the reason for the upsurge in temperatures people are calling "Global Warming" really is related to increasing CO2s in the atmosphere - which has not been proven, or that the results will be as dire as some of the hysterical whiners is predicting - which is even further from being proven.

The only way that we are really going to control our emissions is with increasing technology over the next fifty, sixty years. It's just not going to happen today.

You can blame the media if you want. It certainly wasn't isolated to Canada if it was the case.

As far as your assertion that there is no support for doing anything, I suppose the Tories could test that theory if they want when they present their environmental program.

The previous Liberal government policy was not working. I have no doubt that if the Liberals had won, they would also be held to task for Kyoto. Harper never believed in the science of global warming at first. He has done a 180 on the subject. He is going to have to convince the NDP on their new law. If it falls short, I don't think the NDP could possibly support it.

[jdobbin]

Are you suggesting the science on this issue IS precise?

I never said it was. But some right wing organizations used the computer models to deny the very existence of global warming.

[jdobbin]

I believe in science. I believe in it so much that when scientists spend years producing a report - but then let non-scientists, so-called (policy makers) write the summary - and then spend a few months adjusting the report to match the summary.... I laugh out loud.

Politicians have been trying to re-write the reports for a long time. I don't blame the scientists for that. They try and get the message out and it is available through their peer reviewed research.

[Canuck E Stan]

The previous Liberal government policy was not working. I have no doubt that if the Liberals had won, they would also be held to task for Kyoto. Harper never believed in the science of global warming at first. He has done a 180 on the subject. He is going to have to convince the NDP on their new law. If it falls short, I don't think the NDP could possibly support it.

From the G&M article of yesterday, Canada will have to fork over $10 Billion + to make up the shorfall in Kyoto. Are you willing to give to other nations $10 Billion to buy credits?

Do you think the media has explained this about Kyoto to the Canadian public?

[jdobbin]

From the G&M article of yesterday, Canada will have to fork over $10 Billion + to make up the shorfall in Kyoto. Are you willing to give to other nations $10 Billion to buy credits?

Do you think the media has explained this about Kyoto to the Canadian public?

Looks like the media is explaining it if you say it was written about in the Globe and Mail.

[Canuck E Stan]

From the G&M article of yesterday, Canada will have to fork over $10 Billion + to make up the shorfall in Kyoto. Are you willing to give to other nations $10 Billion to buy credits?

Do you think the media has explained this about Kyoto to the Canadian public?

Looks like the media is explaining it if you say it was written about in the Globe and Mail.

I realize to you the G&M is "the" media, but there are others.

After all these years of "Kyoto" has the media done enough to explain beyond greenhouse gases, about how the protocol works?

I would think most Canadians would be shocked to know how much the credits will cost the country.

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion+ to buy credits?

[Wilber]

I haven't called anyone a fascist or religious fundamentalist. I have no problems with conservatives who have questions about the economics or social implications of global warming or any other area of science. I do have problems with discrediting scientists in general, especially when it is done by people who have no peer reviewed work to show of their own.

That's very nice of you but fortunately we still live in a society where you don't get to chose what people can question. You throw a blanket over all of the "right" by accusing them of discrediting scientists. Even scientists discredit scientists. You have embraced the science which you have chosen as your religion. Any questioning of that is heresy from someone who either hasn't seen the light or is in someone else's pocket. Don't you ever think that just maybe it has been suggested to the odd scientist out there that they might want to consider the effect of not embracing the fashionable or PC view might have on their funding or resources, or the funding and resources of the institution he works for? That the odd scientist has thought, Gee, global warming is where it is at and I could do real well if I jump on this band wagon? Or do all scientists wear either white hats or black hats depending on whether their findings or opinions fit your view of the world?

Scary is when people stop questioning and become sheeple. Really scary is when they are actively discouraged or prevented from questioning. Seventy some years ago it happened simultaneously at both ends of the political spectrum. Hitler on the right, Stalin on the left. Consider the consequences.

Trying to discourage debate by labeling anyone who questions the accepted norm or the flavour of the day is dangerous.

The world is warming. While there may be evidence pointing to man playing an important part in that, everything else is a theory at this point. Some theories are better than others but they are all just theories. This global warming crusade is becoming a bit too much like a religion for my taste. As it gains momentum the greater the likelyhood of science being more and more displaced by dogma. That makes me nervous.

[jdobbin]

I realize to you the G&M is "the" media, but there are others.

After all these years of "Kyoto" has the media done enough to explain beyond greenhouse gases, about how the protocol works?

I would think most Canadians would be shocked to know how much the credits will cost the country.

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion+ to buy credits?

I've seen the same story in Canwest papers, the CTV, CBC and heard it on CJOB.

We're willing to spend billions in Afghanistan on security for Canada even though we weren't attacked. What makes this so different?

[hiti]

According to internal government documents, had the Conservatives not scrapped Project Green, Canada would have met 80 per cent of its Kyoto targets two years before the deadline.

So if Canada has to spend $10 billion to buy credits, it's Steve's fault. His ignorant arrogance is destroying Canada.

[Riverwind]

According to internal government documents, had the Conservatives not scrapped Project Green, Canada would have met 80 per cent of its Kyoto targets two years before the deadline.

That claim is likely BS so stop making it unless you can provide us with the exact numbers that support that claim.

[Canuck E Stan]

I realize to you the G&M is "the" media, but there are others.

After all these years of "Kyoto" has the media done enough to explain beyond greenhouse gases, about how the protocol works?

I would think most Canadians would be shocked to know how much the credits will cost the country.

Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion+ to buy credits?

I've seen the same story in Canwest papers, the CTV, CBC and heard it on CJOB.

We're willing to spend billions in Afghanistan on security for Canada even though we weren't attacked. What makes this so different?

You've seen it, and I've seen it because we take an active interest in it and in politics.

I'm talking about most Canadians who among other things, can't even bother to vote, or don't get into the substance of an issue because it isn't that important to them.

The almost 70% majority of people from the CTV poll who wouldn't want their fuel prices raised in order to cut greenhouse gases.

Do you really think Canadians will be in favour of sending $10 Billion to a place like China that's in an economic boom? Or Russia?

Again let me ask you, are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?