Opposition forces Kyoto bill,

madmax · February 17, 2007

If the Liberals weren't promising change, why did they sign an agreement that committed the country? As you say, it was on the back burner then and there was little pressure for them to sign. The Conservatives did nothing for a year with a minority, the Liberals did nothing for ten with a majority. They have no excuses or credibility on this issue and passing this bill is about as cynical and dishonest as you can get. If they wanted to make compliance with Kyoto law they had ten years with a majority to do it. Wa happened?

Nothing

Wilber · February 17, 2007

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.

Balls, people try to discredit anything that doesn't fit their view of the world or isn't in their best interest. Their political orientation has nothing to do with it.

Canuck E Stan · February 17, 2007

What science, put it up there.

Canadians contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions of the 5% that man produces. The other 95% is contributed by nature.Therefore,Canadians produce .001% of emissions.If the scientists claim for a 6 degree rise in temperature in the next 50 years is true, and Canada shut down every industry and every Canadian leaves Canada, our contribution to climate change will reduce the climate change by .0006 of a degree.

In the CTV poll mentioned,

Participants were asked how much of a contribution Canadians can make a towards global warming?

Almost 92% said we can make elther a major or minor contribution.

Can global warming be solved?

83% said either partially or completely

I guess if you think that shutting Canada down for fifty years to get a maximum of .0006 degrees reduction is going to make a difference....

B. Max · February 17, 2007

Well get it up there i want to see it. You obviously have seen it. What is it a big secret.

You want to see it.....

I have seen it......

is it a big secret.....

What's the password?

You sound like Polynewbie with the "BIG SECRET" conspiracy

You sound like Suzuki. All hat and no cattle.

jdobbin · February 17, 2007

Balls, people try to discredit anything that doesn't fit their view of the world or isn't in their best interest. Their political orientation has nothing to do with it.

You'll have to show me how the left or center has tried to discredit science. I haven't seen it.

jdobbin · February 17, 2007

If the Liberals weren't promising change, why did they sign an agreement that committed the country? As you say, it was on the back burner then and there was little pressure for them to sign. The Conservatives did nothing for a year with a minority, the Liberals did nothing for ten with a majority. They have no excuses or credibility on this issue and passing this bill is about as cynical and dishonest as you can get. If they wanted to make compliance with Kyoto law they had ten years with a majority to do it. Wa happened?
As for the Conservatives, we'll just have to wait and see. Shouldn't be hard to do better than nothing.

I'm not defending the Liberal plan at all. I just don't think the Tories have one either.

August1991 · February 17, 2007

The implications of this Kyoto bill are one thing. I haven't seen a discussion of its political optics. Chantal Hebert makes this very good point:

Now that he has led the opposition parties into passing a bill forcing the Conservatives to implement the Kyoto Protocol, the worst thing that could happen to him would be to win a snap election this spring and then be forced to live by the terms of Bill C-288.
A Liberal government would face two stark choices:

Preside over a major federal-provincial crisis that would make the occasional Ottawa-Quebec blowouts sound like Chinese New Year firecrackers.

Own up to the fact that the bill the party sponsored is a legislative sham, on par with the 1993 Liberal promises to eliminate the GST and renegotiate NAFTA.

From the standpoint of political optics, this bill is terrible for the Liberals. This bill will only remind people of previous, empty, grandstanding Liberal promises.

The federal Liberal Party should think far more about substance and less about image. Since at least 1968, too many English Canadian Liberals have believed that the road to power passes by image.

This bill is the latest manifestation of that belief. It doesn't work anymore. Rodrigues has done the same as Chretien's (empty) promise to abolish the GST.

----

Nicholas Stern's argument is a good one. People alive today in rich countries will spend a fortune on raising their children and ensuring they get ahead. Presumably, people alive today also care about their grandchildren (otherwise, why care about children?)

So, why spend a fortune on education (private/public schools and university) now when environmental problems in the future world will be so costly for their children and grandchildren? Would it not be better to spend a few thousand now to avoid millions in future costs?

Then again, Stern's argument misses the fundamental point of global warming. We only see (private) costs to our family. We don't perceive (public) costs to society and the planet. As Margaret Thatcher wisely said, there is no society.

B. Max · February 17, 2007

I guess if you think that shutting Canada down for fifty years to get a maximum of .0006 degrees reduction is going to make a difference....

Gee I'll have to turn my thermostat up .0006 of a degree. Actually their own numbers show the global avergae temperature has decreased more than that since 1998.

Wilber · February 17, 2007

You'll have to show me how the left or center has tried to discredit science. I haven't seen it.

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.

B. Max · February 17, 2007

The implications of this Kyoto bill are one thing. I haven't seen a discussion of its political optics. Chantal Hebert makes this very good point:

Now that he has led the opposition parties into passing a bill forcing the Conservatives to implement the Kyoto Protocol, the worst thing that could happen to him would be to win a snap election this spring and then be forced to live by the terms of Bill C-288.

If Harper were smart he would have made it a confidence bill and let the government fall then fought the election on kyoto. Polls have shown that putting the state of the economy on the agenda causes kyoto to fall right off the radar screen. As one economic professor said today on Rutherford, everyone who has looked at it including himself has said that implementing kyoto would not just destroy the economy but collapse it. The CPC have been handed a golden opportunity.

jdobbin · February 17, 2007

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.

Wilber · February 17, 2007

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.

There you go again, the only science is that which you choose to believe in.

jdobbin · February 17, 2007

There you go again, the only science is that which you choose to believe in.

And there you go again not showing how the left discredits science.

Wilber · February 17, 2007

There you go again, the only science is that which you choose to believe in.

And there you go again not showing how the left discredits science.

I don't have to, I have only shown how you chose what you will believe in and discredit the rest. I haven't accused the left of discrediting anything, only that people in general tend to discredit what doesn't fit their view of the world or they don't see to be in their interests, it is you who are generalizing.

noahbody · February 17, 2007

If the Liberals weren't promising change, why did they sign an agreement that committed the country? As you say, it was on the back burner then and there was little pressure for them to sign. The Conservatives did nothing for a year with a minority, the Liberals did nothing for ten with a majority. They have no excuses or credibility on this issue and passing this bill is about as cynical and dishonest as you can get. If they wanted to make compliance with Kyoto law they had ten years with a majority to do it. Wa happened?

As for the Conservatives, we'll just have to wait and see. Shouldn't be hard to do better than nothing.

I'm not defending the Liberal plan at all. I just don't think the Tories have one either.

Dion's defense of 10 years of nothing was that he was just about to act when the election was called. If this is the case, he should be able to tell the country his plan tomorrow. He must have it written out somewhere. He'll just need to find it.

jdobbin · February 17, 2007

I don't have to, I have only shown how you chose what you will believe in and discredit the rest. I haven't accused the left of discrediting anything, only that people in general tend to discredit what doesn't fit their view of the world or they don't see to be in their interests, it is you who are generalizing.

And you believe in what you believe in. As for generalizing, it has been written about quite a bit about how the conservative movement has tried to discredit science. It got to be so much of a joke that it was the subject of a series of cartoons in Doonesbury.

I can't recall a similar strategy of the sort from liberals.

If the Conservatives think that the economy will be crushed by Kyoto or environmental controls in general, it would help if they actually published credible numbers on the subject.

Wilber · February 17, 2007

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.

jdobbin · February 17, 2007

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.

Riverwind · February 17, 2007

If the Conservatives think that the economy will be crushed by Kyoto or environmental controls in general, it would help if they actually published credible numbers on the subject.

From the G&M today:

Last May, after years of Liberal inaction, the Conservative government conceded that the level of emissions in 2004 was 34.6 per cent above Canada's Kyoto target of an average of 563 million tonnes annually between 2008 and 2012. Canada's emissions have since sailed even higher, probably reaching 780 million tonnes a year.
Suppose Alberta eliminated all tar-sands development. That's a saving of 30 million tonnes a year. Suppose Ontario shut down all of its coal-fired power plants. That's 24 million tonnes. To cover the shortfall, Canada would have to go abroad to buy emission credits or sponsor carbon-reduction initiatives in other countries. Most experts put the price tag for that splurge at a minimum of $10-billion. It could go far higher as the market gets tighter, squeezing federal funds for everything from health care to retraining programs.

It should be obvious to anyone that Canada is not going to meet the Kyoto targets and the sooner we pull out of the treaty the better.

August1991 · February 17, 2007

If the Conservatives think that the economy will be crushed by Kyoto or environmental controls in general, it would help if they actually published credible numbers on the subject.

It would help if the Liberals introduced serious measures.

A paper promise to abolish the GST, or meet the Kyoto Protocol, is one thing. From promise to fact is another thing altogether. The Liberals believe that the perception of truth means truth.

[thread drift]

Kinsella is a modern Liberal. Kinsella believes that modern truth is set in the Internet. The "progressive" term for this is "framing the question".

What did the federal Liberals accomplish since 1982? Even since then, is a "new" constitution without Quebec an accomplishment? John A Macdonald got agreement. Pierre E Trudeau didn't.

[/thread drift]

Catchme · February 17, 2007

If the Conservatives think that the economy will be crushed by Kyoto or environmental controls in general, it would help if they actually published credible numbers on the subject.
From the G&M today:
Canada's emissions have since sailed even higher, probably reaching 780 million tonnes a year.
... To cover the shortfall, Canada would have to go abroad to buy emission credits or sponsor carbon-reduction initiatives in other countries. Most experts put the price tag for that splurge at a minimum of $10-billion. It could go far higher as the market gets tighter, squeezing federal funds for everything from health care to retraining programs.

It should be obvious to anyone that Canada is not going to meet the Kyoto targets and the sooner we pull out of the treaty the better.

So, emissions have soared ever higher since the CPC came into power with their disavowing Global Warming, and now their actions/imaction will cost us 10 billion or more?

So, we should just pull out because the CPC have caused our GHG to soar higher by giving industry free reign?

geoffrey · February 17, 2007

So, we should just pull out because the CPC have caused our GHG to soar higher by giving industry free reign?

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.

Not due to Harper, he didn't sign it, he saw the written on the wall when Kyoto was ratified. This is due to a ) a Liberal government more concerned with hoping into bed with European interests than our own interests at home and b ) not doing a damned thing for their entire 13 years in power to help GHG.

So ya, if after 13 years, Harper's emission increases are worse, I'll agree with you.

Catchme · February 17, 2007

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. Logic says if we were that close something else had to have happened since. This was up until the time Harper took office. If it has soared that much beyond since, it is Harper's fault.

madmax · February 17, 2007

You sound like Suzuki. All hat and no cattle.

And you sound like someone whom has formed an opinion that climate change isn't something that Scientists should be concerned about.

madmax · February 17, 2007

From the standpoint of political optics, this bill is terrible for the Liberals. This bill will only remind people of previous, empty, grandstanding Liberal promises.

What Liberal Bill? This was a private members bill.

Will that work?