Tories Support Kyoto

[geoffrey]

News Story

So apparently the CPC has decided to meet Kyoto targets... setting hard caps and establishing a trading market in Montreal (why Montreal? well, just look at the rest of the CPC spending).

Fullfilling the objectives of Kyoto would be too costly for Canada. According to the CPC, Prentice is on his way to Calgary right now to bail them out with the oil industry.

What is happening? Why the flip-flop? And why are we throwing everything away to send money to China and Russia so they can build coal plants?

Everyday the CPC digs a bigger hole. Why not vote Liberal? What's the difference?

[jdobbin]

Everyday the CPC digs a bigger hole. Why not vote Liberal? What's the difference?

Rather confusing flip flop for them, don't you think?

[blueblood]

News Story

So apparently the CPC has decided to meet Kyoto targets... setting hard caps and establishing a trading market in Montreal (why Montreal? well, just look at the rest of the CPC spending).

Fullfilling the objectives of Kyoto would be too costly for Canada. According to the CPC, Prentice is on his way to Calgary right now to bail them out with the oil industry.

What is happening? Why the flip-flop? And why are we throwing everything away to send money to China and Russia so they can build coal plants?

Everyday the CPC digs a bigger hole. Why not vote Liberal? What's the difference?

The Liberals are gonna have a field day with this. Your right we have a Liberal party East and a Liberal party West. We'd be better off pulling out of Kyoto, having our name tarnished a little bit, and finding a reasonable way of getting things done that actually work.

[mikedavid00]

News Story

Everyday the CPC digs a bigger hole. Why not vote Liberal? What's the difference?

I had an old boss who used to say "the only way to show people in charge that something doesn't work is to actually try to do it and prove to them that it doesn't work. She was right.

That's all that's happening here.

We'll try to meet the bs targets which are not possible and people will realize that.. well.. it just isn't possible.

It's a good political move in a minority gov't and something that I would have done if I wanted to gain majority.

To meet these targets other motions have to be passed which probably wont and there won't be much media spin when that happens. Poll's at that time wont' be affected.

I have to hand it to Harper for trying to win the majority. He hasnt' touched immigration, has pretended to clean the environment (our already clean one I might add), and he basically hasn't created major headlines as of late.

But this all goes to show that our Parlimentary system of power simply does not work for Canada. We need

to give power back to the provinces and descisions to the people.

Instead we are playing these sorts of games with polling, Quebec, and the CBC.

When is enough, enough?

[gc1765]

Some more info:

"The Tory government intends to stop the rise of greenhouse gases in three to five years, according to a speech to be delivered by Environment Minister John Baird....

...The speech says that by 2020, the government hopes it will have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes.

It also says the government will explore emission credit trading with the U.S. and Mexico, something they have been reluctant to embrace in the past."

There must be at least 30-40% of Canada who opposes this, no? Where are these people going to park their vote? If all the anti-Kyoto/anti-emission trading/anti-GHG reducing voters voted for the CPC, they could likely win the election, no? I've heard people say the Liberals will go further to the right on economic issues to make up for being too far left on the environment...but if Conservatives are on par with the Liberals on the environment, and are spending like crazy, it could mean the Liberals will be the party of choice for fiscal conservatives.

Link

[August1991]

The Conservatives stunned the Commons on Tuesday by supporting an opposition motion to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, in apparent contradiction of their own frequently stated policies.

...

The government has repeatedly said it does not plan to set absolute targets for cutting emissions, but rather “intensity targets” which would allow emissions to rise with economic growth.

“I’m not sure the government understood what it just voted,” said New Democrat MP Paul Dewar.

I'm with this NDP MP. I don't know what the Conservative environmental policy is anymore. They've gone from Ambrose to Baird and may as well go to Club Z.

Like Income Trusts, Fortier in the Senate, floor crossings and government spending, Harper has lost his claim to fame - clarity.

On the issue of the environment, I think this matters. Like the gun registry.

In all seriousness, I think this is about the sixth or seventh Tory environment policy in the past year or so. Should I pay attention now? Why?

[geoffrey]

I'm a very strong environmentalist, I think that Canadians need to be very concerned about the toxins in the air we breathe and the food we eat... the water we drink. I think that protection of natural areas is important.

To some extent, I think we need to limit CO2 emissions as it certainly can't be doing any good.

The science behind global warming is firm in some areas, and questionable in others. It's clearly more of a political movement now than anything else. I'm cautious about throwing away our entire economy for a political movement.

Kyoto is a joke, it's harmful to Canada, it's harmful to alot of the third world and developing nations. The CO2 craze has seriously impeded many African and Asian countries from secure the supplies of energy needed for them to develop their economy. Canada can't afford widespread solar generation, why do we expect Africa to?

Under Kyoto, all conditions can be acheived and worldwide GHG can increase. That is not acceptable.

Sending money to Russia or China for them to build their polluting economies while we make serious efforts at home to be better environmental stewards is flat out unacceptable.

I won't support any party that sends any dollar of Canadian taxpayer money overseas to buy credits. It's a scam, and Canada and the developing world will pay the ultimate price. I certainly will not support that.

[BC_chick]

Can I ask what the heck is happening?

The 'Natural Governing Party of Canada' (meaning the party that dominated politics in recent history) has typically been centrist. Hence, Stephen Harper, formerly centre-right, moves a few notches to the left to become the 'New Natural Governing Party of Canada.'

Brilliant politics for Mr. Harper. Bad for Canada.

As proud as I am to be on the left, I do believe that we need at least ONE right-of-centre party out there. This is ridiculous, CPC centre-left, LPC on the left, what next, NDP having no choice but to take the Conservative platform?

[geoffrey]

I'm shocked with your analysis BC Chick, I completely agree.

[stignasty]

I don't think either the CPC or the Liberals are leftist. I think they both have moved from their traditional places on the spectrum and have met half way between, still on the right.

The original post made me think about Animal Farm. "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

[ScottSA]

This thread says it all. Hasn't anyone figured out what's going on yet?

[geoffrey]

I'll positively state that the current CPC government is much more left leaning than the Liberals under Chretien.

[BC_chick]

I'm shocked with your analysis BC Chick, I completely agree.

You're not quite clear here, are you shocked that I came up with it or that you agree?

[BC_chick]

I think they both have moved from their traditional places on the spectrum and have met half way between, still on the right.

Really? Provide some examples of recent right-of-centre decisions from our PM.

[geoffrey]

You're not quite clear here, are you shocked that I came up with it or that you agree?

Bit of both.

[scribblet]

Climate change has become a hot button issue with no scientific agreement, so I suppose politicians on all sides have to play to both arguments - hysteria is outpacing science in this debate.

Instead of blowing hot air about potential floods and the sky is falling rhetoric, and wasting our money on fear mongering, they should start looking at made in Canada solutions based on real fact. Problem is we don't know what the real facts are. But buying credits from China is not an answer

[cybercoma]

Climate change has become a hot button issue with no scientific agreement, so I suppose politicians on all sides have to play to both arguments - hysteria is outpacing science in this debate.

Instead of blowing hot air about potential floods and the sky is falling rhetoric, and wasting our money on fear mongering, they should start looking at made in Canada solutions based on real fact. Problem is we don't know what the real facts are. But buying credits from China is not an answer

Actually, there is scientific agreement. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels AND deforestation in the tropics has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. High CO2 concentrations in atmospheres increases the surface temperature of planets.

By exactly how much and over what time is unclear, but it is without question that we are increasing the CO2 concentrations of our atmosphere through our activities.

[scribblet]

Actually, there is scientific agreement. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels AND deforestation in the tropics has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. High CO2 concentrations in atmospheres increases the surface temperature of planets.

By exactly how much and over what time is unclear, but it is without question that we are increasing the CO2 concentrations of our atmosphere through our activities.

For the most part I suppose, but carbon dioxide occurs as a natural component of the atmosphere as well, can't regulate that.

There certainly is no agreement as to how much we can do to stop the earth's cycling, or slow it down, that is an unknown. But I know there is global warming because just about 4 weeks ago there was a lot of snow in my garden, and this week - its all gone, its warmer and I don't need a heavy jacket. So yup, its warming up all right.

[daniel]

...

Actually, there is scientific agreement. ...

To be more precise, there is no scientific disagreement. The debate is conjurred by the political lobby and the media types.

[cybercoma]

For the most part I suppose, but carbon dioxide occurs as a natural component of the atmosphere as well, can't regulate that.

There certainly is no agreement as to how much we can do to stop the earth's cycling, or slow it down, that is an unknown. But I know there is global warming because just about 4 weeks ago there was a lot of snow in my garden, and this week - its all gone, its warmer and I don't need a heavy jacket. So yup, its warming up all right.

You're right, CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere, but we're talking about an increased CONCENTRATION of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that our actions add to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels and chopping down the rainforests does increase the concentration of CO2. We know this, but I think you're also right in the sense that we're unsure as to what impact we can have by reducing emissions and stopping deforestation. No one will put their neck on the line by making predictions about such things, because no one has a crystal ball.

It could be a hugely expensive undertaking that produces little response in our environment, true. But it could also be a hugely expensive undertaking that produces a large response in our environment. No one knows for sure, but what is known is that we are definitely having an impact on our planet.

[cybercoma]

...

Actually, there is scientific agreement. ...

To be more precise, there is no scientific disagreement. The debate is conjurred by the political lobby and the media types.

The solutions are a largely political and media debate, I agree.

It's easy for scientists to say, "it's simple, stop CO2 emissions and chopping down trees."

But, what will that do to our society? We need to be progressive and move forward; however, we need to know where we're moving. What's going to happen when we stop using lumber and paper, what do we do instead? What's going to happen if we can't emit CO2 into the atmosphere? How do we solve that problem without decreasing productivity?

Simply limiting the amount of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere isn't going to make enough of a difference to change the environment. I think we need to stop it entirely, but that's impossible at this point in time.

[Topaz]

You're not quite clear here, are you shocked that I came up with it or that you agree?

Bit of both.

I checked with the Kyoto agreement and I wanted to see what happenings to countries who don't reach their goals. The country is then required to makeup the difference and an ADDITIONAL 30%. plus, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program. So.... Baird is going have to be very severe to get Canada on target. BUT, if he hits the auto sector harder than the oil sands, I think there will be trouble since Alberta is polluting more than Ontario, even though Ontario comes in second. Harper didn't give the province of Ontario the money promised by the Libs, so they could get rid of the coal- hydro, and go to nuclear power instead. I know of a US company that has turned coal to a liquid and they say it doesn't pollute the environment when burned.

[cybercoma]

I checked with the Kyoto agreement and I wanted to see what happenings to countries who don't reach their goals. The country is then required to makeup the difference and an ADDITIONAL 30%. plus, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program. So.... Baird is going have to be very severe to get Canada on target. BUT, if he hits the auto sector harder than the oil sands, I think there will be trouble since Alberta is polluting more than Ontario, even though Ontario comes in second. Harper didn't give the province of Ontario the money promised by the Libs, so they could get rid of the coal- hydro, and go to nuclear power instead. I know of a US company that has turned coal to a liquid and they say it doesn't pollute the environment when burned.

Hitting the auto-sector would be a disaster. The manufacturers will simply pack their bags and move to the US or Mexico, as has already been the drift. Hitting the auto-sector will strict regulations will kick a lot of canadians in the gonads and may be disastrous to our economy.