Opposition forces Kyoto bill,

[Catchme]

Harper says he'll respect Kyoto bill, but adds it's meaningless

When did Harper say this?

Yesterday he said quite the opposite, so please provide proof.

[newbie]

Harper "dithers" again. He said today in Question Period that he'll respect Kyoto if/when it gets through the Sentate. He said though that there was no plan attached, thus rendering it meaningless.

[Argus]

Harper "dithers" again. He said today in Question Period that he'll respect Kyoto if/when it gets through the Sentate. He said though that there was no plan attached, thus rendering it meaningless.

Which is essentially correct. The opposition loves to make grand gestures but is very short on specifics about how to get the job done. None of them wants to pop the bubble and let people in on what exactly would be required to meet those obligations. You are not going to see any opposition leader stating firm figures about the price or what kind of caps or limits they would put in place on specific industries.

Can you imagine David McGuinty trying to talk about how they would put caps in place for the auto industry, for example - the same caps his own brother, the Liberal premier of Ontario protested against when the Tories were considering them?

[geoffrey]

Can you imagine David McGuinty trying to talk about how they would put caps in place for the auto industry, for example - the same caps his own brother, the Liberal premier of Ontario protested against when the Tories were considering them?

Maybe Layton should be cheering those job losses at Chrysler, of course that means that GHG will be reduced. It's only really step one if they follow through with their plan.

But I have a sneaky suspicion that the Liberals and NDP aren't looking at the auto sector. They've got their eyes set on Alberta, and want to take Alberta down... Canada hates when a province is doing well. Unfortunately, I think Alberta knows better this time and we'll fight it alot harder (Ottawa doesn't have the Constitutional power to limit production in Alberta).

If Ottawa managed to shut down the oil sands (which is possible even through a small cut in production, economies of scale keep that operation going), I'm sure most Albertans that would then be losing their houses, cars and jobs would have no problem saying bye bye to Canada.

[Keepitsimple]

Dion (and Canadians) still doesn't understand what his Liberal Party signed. Canada is at least 30% (probably more) over our target. To comply with Kyoto, we don't have to meet the target by 2012....we are obligated to average that target over the period 2008-2012. That really means we have to meet those targets by next year and keep them there! If we don't, we have to make up for it before we get to 2012. For example if we reduce our GHG by 10% in 2008 and get it to 15% in 2009, 20% in 2010, and 25% in 2011 .......then we don't have to hit 30% in 2012....in order to average 30% over the period 2008-2012, we'd have to hit 80% in 2012!!!!! Ludicrous? Of course, but that's what we agreed to in Kyoto and if you want to meet your obligations as the Liberal legislation demands - that's what we'd have to do. If you don't believe it - look it up in Wikipedia (Kyoto Protocol) - it's clearly stated.

How anyone would think that the Conservatives should blindly follow this "law" is really mind-boggling.

Here's an excerpt and Link:

From Wickipedia:

By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected GHG emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland. Reduction targets expire in 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

[g_bambino]

As I have noted before, none of the opposition parties have any plan in place to meet Kyoto. Nor are they offering up anything but vague suggestions along that line.

Ah, but imagine if the Liberals won the next election and were then bound by their own bill to meet the impossible Kyoto targets. Oh, what beautiful irony it would be!

[White Doors]

As I have noted before, none of the opposition parties have any plan in place to meet Kyoto. Nor are they offering up anything but vague suggestions along that line.

Ah, but imagine if the Liberals won the next election and were then bound by their own bill to meet the impossible Kyoto targets. Oh, what beautiful irony it would be!

That could be the bright side of looking at a liberal election victory, yes..

[Argus]

As I have noted before, none of the opposition parties have any plan in place to meet Kyoto. Nor are they offering up anything but vague suggestions along that line.

Ah, but imagine if the Liberals won the next election and were then bound by their own bill to meet the impossible Kyoto targets. Oh, what beautiful irony it would be!

That could be the bright side of looking at a liberal election victory, yes..

If the Liberals were in power, most of those clamouring about Kyoto would go silent. And this would disappear off the front pages.

[Topaz]

The question of "do Canadians have brains in their heads" means alot of times to the politicans that change laws. The Harris government didn't renew the "auto pact" so now, companies like S.Korea can sell cars here but don't have to make them here. The manufaturing of goods is leaving N. America because of greed of everyone involved but most to pay employees $3.00 per hour. When the oil boom in Alberta is done how will Canada survive as a working nation?? Just like the environment as come to the top of the list, as people lose their jobs, Harper is going to go way down in the polls, the voting polls!!!

[jdobbin]

Stern is coming to Canada and some believe it may influence the vote on the environmental bill.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070214/...ies_kyoto_stern

Stern's report contradicts the Conservatives' arguments on almost every major point.

He says cutting greenhouse emissions to acceptable levels will cost a mere one per cent of global GDP by 2050, while failing to do so could cost up to 20 per cent - which would amount to trillions of dollars.

Stern says rich countries must take the lead in addressing a climate problem they have largely created, so as to ensure a sense of fairness and bring developing countries into the process gradually.

[Riverwind]

Stern says rich countries must take the lead in addressing a climate problem they have largely created, so as to ensure a sense of fairness and bring developing countries into the process gradually.

This is false - the GHG problem has been caused as much by the out of control population growth in the third world as it has been caused by industrialized countries.

[jdobbin]

Stern says rich countries must take the lead in addressing a climate problem they have largely created, so as to ensure a sense of fairness and bring developing countries into the process gradually.

This is false - the GHG problem has been caused as much by the out of control population growth in the third world as it has been caused by industrialized countries.

I didn't say this. It was in the news story that I quoted from.

I suppose the Conservatives can dispute Stern's report when they meet him.

[Riverwind]

I suppose the Conservatives can dispute Stern's report when they meet him.

Strern, like Suzuki and other environmentalists, live in a bubble and are out of touch with reality. They grossly underestimate the cost to change people's behavior, the time it takes to deploy new technology and the ability of new technology to actually make up the difference. They also naively assume that billions spent to buy credits will actually be spent on GHG emissions reductions when bitter experience tells us that most of the money will likely end up lining the pockets of third world bureaucrats.

[jdobbin]

Strern, like Suzuki and other environmentalists, live in a bubble and are out of touch with reality. They grossly underestimate the cost to change people's behavior, the time it takes to deploy new technology and the ability of new technology to actually make up the difference. They also naively assume that billions spent to buy credits will actually be spent on GHG emissions reductions when bitter experience tells us that most of the money will likely end up lining the pockets of third world bureaucrats.

Once again, the Conservatives will have to argue those economics with Stern. In other words, they had better come up with numbers that counter Stern's because that is how the Europeans will be coming after Canada in the debate.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Strern, like Suzuki and other environmentalists, live in a bubble and are out of touch with reality. They grossly underestimate the cost to change people's behavior, the time it takes to deploy new technology and the ability of new technology to actually make up the difference. They also naively assume that billions spent to buy credits will actually be spent on GHG emissions reductions when butter experience tells us that most of the money will likely end up lining the pocket of third world bureaucrats.

Perhaps after you have presented papers on how all those economists are wrong about banking, engineers and physicists are wrong about 911 perhaps, after you get your picture on Time as Man Of The Year you can do a presentation on the economy and Kyoto and straighten everyone out.

I don't believe Global warming is real, but I don't think you are either. You are too full of yourself to actually be real.

[Riverwind]

Once again, the Conservatives will have to argue those economics with Stern. In other words, they had better come up with numbers that counter Stern's because that is how the Europeans will be coming after Canada in the debate.

I don't think the conservatives have to argue with him at all. Canada will not meet its Kyoto obligations no matter what Stern says. All the conservatives need to do is present a coherent plan that will reduce GHGs and explain that, unlike Strern, they are accountable to Canadians for the consequences of their actions.

The Europeans can rant all they want, however, the chances of a Kyoto 2 accord are next to zero if the Europeans demand punitive retaliation against countries like Canada, Australia and the US because these countries did not meet Kyoto 1 targets.

[Wilber]

Stern is coming to Canada and some believe it may influence the vote on the environmental bill.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070214/...ies_kyoto_stern

Stern's report contradicts the Conservatives' arguments on almost every major point.

He says cutting greenhouse emissions to acceptable levels will cost a mere one per cent of global GDP by 2050, while failing to do so could cost up to 20 per cent - which would amount to trillions of dollars.

Stern says rich countries must take the lead in addressing a climate problem they have largely created, so as to ensure a sense of fairness and bring developing countries into the process gradually.

All this assumes that we can reverse global warming of course and the reality is, no one really has a clue whether that is possible, they can't even agree on how much it is going to warm by 2050. The only thing they can agree on is that it is getting warmer but then it has since the end of the last ice age. If it has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age it is going to continue to get warmer even if we do nothing unless we can figure out how to reverse the process. Any ideas? Nuclear winter maybe.

The science on this is so imprecise, I just can't understand how people can come up with these kinds of BS predictions or how others can actually swallow them. Why don't they just say global warming will be expensive. That I would believe.

[Wilber]

If it has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age it is going to continue to get warmer even if we do nothing unless we can figure out how to reverse the process.

By doing nothing I mean the earth would continue to warm even if we weren't here.

[Drea]

IMO Automobiles have come a long way and I don't think vehicles have much of an impact in the scheme of things anyway.

Obviously I am a big fan of the combustion engine. I believe that these motors were made over 100 years ago to service people like me whom are too lazy to engage in organic power.

But your opinion leaves alot to be desired.

My Grand Am is over 100 years old! OMG I oughta get collector plates or sumpthin!

Get a grip -- factories pollute more than all the vehicles on the planet put together. And Kyoto just moves money from our (taxpayer) pockets to some buttfuck country that is SUPPOSED to use the money for "green initiatives". Will the money be used to reduce emmisions in buttfuck countries? Highly unlikely.

So, why isn't some right wing organization advertising this to the public? Why not make it visual and show our money flowing out of our pockets and into foreign pockets while the emmissions from factories around the world continue to flow unabated into the atmosphere.

Kyoto has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing emmissions. Its about money.

MMax -- your opinion leaves alot to be desired.

[jdobbin]

I don't think the conservatives have to argue with him at all. Canada will not meet its Kyoto obligations no matter what Stern says. All the conservatives need to do is present a coherent plan that will reduce GHGs and explain that, unlike Strern, they are accountable to Canadians for the consequences of their actions.

The Europeans can rant all they want, however, the chances of a Kyoto 2 accord are next to zero if the Europeans demand punitive retaliation against countries like Canada, Australia and the US because these countries did not meet Kyoto 1 targets.

I'm not sure what coherent plan they will present. I'm still not convinced that they intend to do anything except re-introduce former Liberal policies.

The Conservatives will indeed have to convince Canadians that their numbers actually are better than Stern's.

[jdobbin]

The science on this is so imprecise, I just can't understand how people can come up with these kinds of BS predictions or how others can actually swallow them. Why don't they just say global warming will be expensive. That I would believe.

If Conservatives believe the science is inaccurate, they should fund research to get a better sense of what really is happening and if and how it can be affected by changes in behaviour.

At the moment, all we are hearing is a lot of people discrediting scientists in general. It has been done so many times in the past and continues now.

It is like arguing that the computer models used to determine the amount of deaths in the Holocaust are imprecise thereby discounting that the event even happened.

[Riverwind]

The Conservatives will indeed have to convince Canadians that their numbers actually are better than Stern's.

Why? I doubt Canadians will want to make serious sacrifices to meet Kyoto no matter what Stern says.

[madmax]

IMO Automobiles have come a long way and I don't think vehicles have much of an impact in the scheme of things anyway.

My Grand Am is over 100 years old! OMG I oughta get collector plates or sumpthin!

Get a grip -- factories pollute more than all the vehicles on the planet put together.

You were suggesting that Automobiles have come a long way. They haven't.

I would also argue, that keeping a polluting vehicle on the road for decades, will cause less greenhouse emmissions then the costs to manufacture a new one. (I have made this argument in the past).

However, for you to believe that vehicles produce little in the Way of Emmissions is foolish and irresponsible.

They contribute and are one of the easier targets to address.

I hope you like your Grand Am. It has my parts in it. Should be around in 100 years if you take good care of it.

[Wilber]

The science on this is so imprecise, I just can't understand how people can come up with these kinds of BS predictions or how others can actually swallow them. Why don't they just say global warming will be expensive. That I would believe.

If Conservatives believe the science is inaccurate, they should fund research to get a better sense of what really is happening and if and how it can be affected by changes in behaviour.

At the moment, all we are hearing is a lot of people discrediting scientists in general. It has been done so many times in the past and continues now.

It is like arguing that the computer models used to determine the amount of deaths in the Holocaust are imprecise thereby discounting that the event even happened.

You know what they say about computers, BS in, BS out.

I am saying that they are not precise enough to put a dollar figure on it. Estimates range from one to five degrees by the end of the century. It's probably going to be on the high side but that is a 500% difference in estimates by scientists who believe in global warming. You call that precise? I am saying that the earth is warming anyway regardless of mans interference. That is a fact, the only variable up for dispute is how much man's interference is affecting the rate.

Speaking of the Holocaust, perhaps those who have caught the Inconvenient Truth religion should stop acting like a bunch of Brownshirts when anyone questions some of the stuff that is in it or some of these way out economic forecasts from people who don't know dick about science.

[jdobbin]

Why? I doubt Canadians will want to make serious sacrifices to meet Kyoto no matter what Stern says.

The polls say they would. It remains to be seen if they will.

At some point, the Conservatives will have to present something that is coherent on the environment. It could be that they are engineering their defeat on the subject believing Canadians will support their watered down version of environmental control. It is a brave roll of the dice.