Is the Clean Air bill dead?

[Figleaf]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/0...4114683-cp.html

Oooops, there goes Tory credibility on the environment.

[Martin Chriton]

Oooops, there goes Tory credibility on the environment.

How so? It looks to me all it says is the Tories don't like the oppositions modifications to the bill. No shocker there.

Hard to support plans coming from a party that thinks we can meet the Kyoto targets. If anything this shows that the CPC needs a majority to make progress on this file.

The Liberals seem to be more concerned with optics than results.

[madmax]

The Liberals seem to be more concerned with optics than results.

I think this could be an accurate statement. But, could you provide more reasoning for this position.

[Martin Chriton]

The Liberals seem to be more concerned with optics than results.

I think this could be an accurate statement. But, could you provide more reasoning for this position.

They talk about meeting the Kyoto targets even though they know we can't.

In fact that's all I hear them talking about.

Kyoto is bad idea, they should let it go.

[Fat Freddie]

Its not dead. Nor will it ever be. What will be dead is the Communist input and the pot smoking dope head input. Reality will prevail and the items that can be obtained without making us the poor bastard children of the USA will be put into policy. The problem with the dope smoking liberals and the communist dreaming green party is that neither party has a grasp on reality and forget that people will only play if they are fat and happy. Eating granola and walking 20 miles to work each day grows old real fast.

[ScottSA]

Eating granola and walking 20 miles to work each day grows old real fast.

Well said. This fad has caught on with students and whoever walks anyway, and some others have leapt partway on the bandwagon as long as it doesn't hurt too much, but as soon as jobs are threatened or stock portfolios start falling reality will rear its head again.

I personally ride my bike most places around town anyway, so I don't care, and I encourage the development of alternate fuels as fast as they are available just to wean ourselves off the Middle east, but I somehow get the idea that the greens think there will be no cost to the program. There will be, and the faster we charge into it the more it's going to cost.

[cybercoma]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/0...4114683-cp.html

Oooops, there goes Tory credibility on the environment.

Now that we've established that no political party has any credibility on the environment -- the Liberals missed the targets and the Tories with this (presumably shows loss of credibility) -- what do we do? Vote NDP? Vote Green? God love us...how do we save the environment?

[Canuck E Stan]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/0...4114683-cp.html

Oooops, there goes Tory credibility on the environment.

Now that we've established that no political party has any credibility on the environment -- the Liberals missed the targets and the Tories with this (presumably shows loss of credibility) -- what do we do? Vote NDP? Vote Green? God love us...how do we save the environment?

We could talk about it...some more and go and see AliGore's "nightmare on earth" again.

Or we can start with doing something, at least the clean air act and build from there.

[jdobbin]

Its not dead. Nor will it ever be. What will be dead is the Communist input and the pot smoking dope head input. Reality will prevail and the items that can be obtained without making us the poor bastard children of the USA will be put into policy. The problem with the dope smoking liberals and the communist dreaming green party is that neither party has a grasp on reality and forget that people will only play if they are fat and happy. Eating granola and walking 20 miles to work each day grows old real fast.

That is pretty funny stuff there. Not exactly realistic but funny.

[jdobbin]

We could talk about it...some more and go and see AliGore's "nightmare on earth" again.

Or we can start with doing something, at least the clean air act and build from there.

I was under the impression that any type of environmental program is a threat to the well being of the nation.

[ScottSA]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/0...4114683-cp.html

Oooops, there goes Tory credibility on the environment.

Now that we've established that no political party has any credibility on the environment -- the Liberals missed the targets and the Tories with this (presumably shows loss of credibility) -- what do we do? Vote NDP? Vote Green? God love us...how do we save the environment?

I thought we were going to bring back high seas profiteering? I've already spooned out an eye and fashioned an eyepatch out of eco-friendly hempen threads.

[Canuck E Stan]

We could talk about it...some more and go and see AliGore's "nightmare on earth" again.

Or we can start with doing something, at least the clean air act and build from there.

I was under the impression that any type of environmental program is a threat to the well being of the nation.

What threat was the original-not changed-to-a-Opposition-overkill-Kyoto-environment-do-it-now-bill?

[jdobbin]

I thought we were going to bring back high seas profiteering? I've already spooned out an eye and fashioned an eyepatch out of eco-friendly hempen threads.

Why stop at the one eye? If one is good for the environment, two would be great.

You'll probably want to do it when you find out that Stelmach is going to listen to Al Gore.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...23?hub=Politics

Al Gore brought his climate change lecture to Calgary on Monday, and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said he would attend -- despite Gore's criticism of the province's oilsands industry.

"We're going to drop by and listen to what Mr. Gore has to say," said Stelmach.

[B. Max]

Is the Clean Air bill dead?

Yup and so is the carbon tax.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?&tf...bhub=VoteResult

[Figleaf]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/0...4114683-cp.html

Oooops, there goes Tory credibility on the environment.

Now that we've established that no political party has any credibility on the environment -- the Liberals missed the targets and the Tories with this (presumably shows loss of credibility) -- what do we do? Vote NDP? Vote Green? God love us...how do we save the environment?

Man, you said it! We're in a serious quandary about the environment. The Kyoto concept, if it could be applied without goring someone's ox, is actually quite sensible -- attaching the cost of external damage to the activity that causes it.

If they ever get it up and running, BUY carbon credits.

But more generally, we need to get smart about the environment. Voters would need to make it their primary voting criterion AND make their very best effort to pick the politicians who make most sense on the subject -- forget partisanship. The Greens, hopefully mean what they stand for, but if there's a good candidate from another party with a good environmental plan, don't waste a vote on a fringe party.

Meanwhile, citizens have to enter the public discourse with their concerns, and common sense. We've got to do things that will work, that means, for example, applying regulations at the point where they make a difference rather than measures that just impose costs on non-poluters. Most programs that target individuals for new duties like recycling or the absurd 'one ton challenge' are disingenuously ineffective and arrogantly troublesome. We have market society, for phoque sake use it -- place the costs and apply the incentives at the point where MANAGEMENT is able have an impact the process.

[Canuck E Stan]

If they ever get it up and running, BUY carbon credits.

Buying carbon credits will reduce greenhouse gases in Canada?

Buying carbon credits will help get our Kyoto commitment to 1990 levels by 2012?

Buying credits will make a difference?

Buying credits will make Al Gore and his enviro-buddies filthy rich,do nothing for the environment,cause hardship to Canadians and change the earth by a zero effect.

Listen to Baird: this wolf may be real

The deadline for meeting this target is not, as commonly reported, 2012. Rather, it is 2008 to 2012: the target is defined as the average annual emissions over that period.

There are two broad ways of obtaining these credits. One is from developing countries, through the Joint Implementation or Clean Environment Mechanisms established under Kyoto. But the total worldwide supply of these is an estimated 85 Mt, and the government's projection already assumes we have bought 65 Mt of these.

The other place to buy credits is on the international emissions trading markets. But these are only just getting under way, and it is to be doubted whether they could yet handle the kinds of demands we would be placing upon them. Moreover, much of the supply of credits would come from places like Russia, whose economy conveniently collapsed just after the Kyoto baseline year, leaving it with much unused capacity. Again, no objection in principle--but this is Russia we're talking about. Do we really know what we're purchasing, or from whom?

" The so-called "flexibility" mechanisms were intended to be "supplemental" to domestic action, not a replacement for it. So it would arguably violate at least the spirit of Kyoto to rely so heavily on purchases abroad.

And since complying with Kyoto is the only reason we would be engaged in this mad dash to hit an arbitrary target by an artificial deadline, what exactly would we be accomplishing?

And what is in Dion's plan? How are we going to "make money" by buying credits, or does the enviro-master have a "plan" like the one he used while environment minister?

[Figleaf]

If they ever get it up and running, BUY carbon credits.

Buying carbon credits will reduce greenhouse gases in Canada?

Buying carbon credits will help get our Kyoto commitment to 1990 levels by 2012?

Buying credits will make a difference?

You mistake my meaning.

I mean if they ever get it up and running, buy carbon credits to make yourself some money.

[cybercoma]

I thought we were going to bring back high seas profiteering? I've already spooned out an eye and fashioned an eyepatch out of eco-friendly hempen threads.

ARGH!!! We'll make these lilly-livered politicians walk the plank! *rattles sabres*

[cybercoma]

Man, you said it! We're in a serious quandary about the environment. The Kyoto concept, if it could be applied without goring someone's ox, is actually quite sensible -- attaching the cost of external damage to the activity that causes it.

If they ever get it up and running, BUY carbon credits.

But more generally, we need to get smart about the environment. Voters would need to make it their primary voting criterion AND make their very best effort to pick the politicians who make most sense on the subject -- forget partisanship. The Greens, hopefully mean what they stand for, but if there's a good candidate from another party with a good environmental plan, don't waste a vote on a fringe party.

Meanwhile, citizens have to enter the public discourse with their concerns, and common sense. We've got to do things that will work, that means, for example, applying regulations at the point where they make a difference rather than measures that just impose costs on non-poluters. Most programs that target individuals for new duties like recycling or the absurd 'one ton challenge' are disingenuously ineffective and arrogantly troublesome. We have market society, for phoque sake use it -- place the costs and apply the incentives at the point where MANAGEMENT is able have an impact the process.

I agree the environment is important, but the opinion of voters depends on how the question is framed.

Presumably government programs cost money. So, if we're to create a huge environmental program the government will need to either 1) raise taxes or; 2) take money from other programs.

Ask the voters if the environment is important to them, they'll mostly all say yes. Ask them if it's important enough to strip money from healthcare, they'll probably say no. Ask taxpayers if their money should be spent buying credits for kyoto, instead of going to domestic programs and see what they say.

[Martin Chriton]

We could talk about it...some more and go and see AliGore's "nightmare on earth" again.

Or we can start with doing something, at least the clean air act and build from there.

I was under the impression that any type of environmental program is a threat to the well being of the nation.

I don't see anyone saying that.

Any *rushed* program will be yes.

[jdobbin]

And what is in Dion's plan? How are we going to "make money" by buying credits, or does the enviro-master have a "plan" like the one he used while environment minister?

Looks like Harper's plan is to follow Dion's if today's news in any indication.

[jdobbin]

I don't see anyone saying that.

Any *rushed* program will be yes.

What do you think of Harper's plan today? Not rushed?

[Martin Chriton]

I don't see anyone saying that.

Any *rushed* program will be yes.

What do you think of Harper's plan today? Not rushed?

It's hard say. I'll have to see more details, but if it's anything like Kyoto the CPC just lost my vote.

[Riverwind]

It's hard say. I'll have to see more details, but if it's anything like Kyoto the CPC just lost my vote.

It sounds reasonable according to Baird's speech:

Canada's New Government's Turning the Corner plan will stop the rise in greenhouse gases in 3-5 years.

The previous government was never able to put on the brakes. We will do that beginning today.

Once greenhouse gases have stopped rising, we will begin to reduce them, so that by 2020, Canada will have cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes. This is 20% of our total emissions today.

IOW - Baird is not trying to meet the Kyoto targets but he does want to demonstrate progress.

[jdobbin]

It's hard say. I'll have to see more details, but if it's anything like Kyoto the CPC just lost my vote.

It includes emissions trading which the Tories have been against in the past.