Conservative Environment Policy Ver. 6.03 (Beta)

[speaker]

We don't want to create more problems in solving other ones. However no matter how we solve this one there will be new ones. And we do need to solve it.

Destroy the economy, or learn to live within our personal, corporate, work, and governmental energy surroundings. There are approximately a million acres of land under hydro-electric reservoirs in BC alone.

This represents what used to be some of the provinces best agricultural land, wildlife habitat, forest land, recreational opportunities, and of course human habitation. I expect the same figures are true for Saskatchewan/Manitoba, and Quebec.

The costs of these reservoir losses are still being borne by the taxpayers of these provinces. The line losses used to be as much as one third of generation, just within the province. There may be some improvement with replacing lines with better materials but it is still pretty significant. Government, not recognizing the costs of destruction on the environment of building projects and then building them one third larger to account for line loss, actually thought it would be a good deal to send power to the California market from BCs northern interior.

At prevailing market rates. ::<(

I like the idea of using geothermal, waste stream energy recovery, solar in it's many aspects, wind, tidal, wave, micro hydro. Whatever seems appropriate to the inhabitants of any given area. The notion that conserving our fossil fuels as much as possible, planting trees, and building up our soils for sequestration purposes will trainwreck the economy is just so much frightened thinking.

With any luck it will re-align it away from our current wasteful, corporate driven consumerism. There will be some hurt, but obviously not as much as the alternative of not meeting the global warming threat.

[jdobbin]

I'm in agreement on both then.

I'm a little concerned with Bairds inability to stress how important the smog/pollutant reduction measures are. Cutting asthma (and likely cancer) rates is huge, and will save the health care system billions, not to mention elimate all that lost productivity, ect..

If I were Baird, I'd be stressing this to the media. Any parent with a kid with asthma would be all over that. Cutting smog and pollutants by 50% is huge in my opinion. Let's do that too.

I have no disagreement on smog control and clean water. Harper thought initially he could do disguise these measures as an emissions policy. It wasn't. This is the reason why Ambrose went down in flames.

[B. Max]

We don't want to create more problems in solving other ones. However no matter how we solve this one there will be new ones. And we do need to solve it.

The problem is we have allowed a problem to be created where no problem existed.

[August1991]

We're adding at least a quarter million new citizens every year. How do you expect to easily and quickly reduce overall emissions?

You're like MikeDavid or Leafless, a one trick pony. You blame immigrants for every problem. (Leafless blames Quebec.) Argus, I suppose you'd find a way to blame immigrants for rising cancer rates.

In fact, a quarter million is less than 1% of the population and our population is growing less quickly now overall than in your halcyon days of the 1960s. (And Argus, immigrants don't add a quarter million net to Canada every year.)

You asked for a policy that would indeed reduce emissions and not result in loss of jobs. This is one of those policies.

Another policy which would reduce emissions and save Canadians billions would be to legislate that new sub-divisions be required to build a certain amount of geo-thermal heating and cooling.

I see red when I hear "legislate a solution" and "job creation".

It is bad economics to choose policies according to the number of jobs created or lost. In the long run, we want to eliminate jobs - not create them.

Finally, the best solutions to environmental problems are simply too complex for a bureaucrat in Ottawa to be able to regulate them into existence. This is my main criticsm of this latest version of a Tory Green Plan. It relies far too much on micro-managing.

Baird's very much in PR mode now (I heard him interviewed on CBC Radio yesterday) and I have the impression that this issue has overwhelmed the Conservatives. For them, it came out of nowhere and they still don't know how to deal with it.

This plan is broche à foin.

Their amateurness is embarrassing but I'll admit that it is extremely hard to think up something new when you're in the spotlight of power.

[noahbody]

[

It is bad economics to choose policies according to the number of jobs created or lost. In the long run, we want to eliminate jobs - not create them.

Yes, we need more unemployment.

[jdobbin]

I see red when I hear "legislate a solution" and "job creation".

It is bad economics to choose policies according to the number of jobs created or lost. In the long run, we want to eliminate jobs - not create them.

Finally, the best solutions to environmental problems are simply too complex for a bureaucrat in Ottawa to be able to regulate them into existence. This is my main criticsm of this latest version of a Tory Green Plan. It relies far too much on micro-managing.

Baird's very much in PR mode now (I heard him interviewed on CBC Radio yesterday) and I have the impression that this issue has overwhelmed the Conservatives. For them, it came out of nowhere and they still don't know how to deal with it.

This plan is broche à foin.

Their amateurness is embarrassing but I'll admit that it is extremely hard to think up something new when you're in the spotlight of power.

You'd probably see red with unemployment and self-regulation that ended up making things worse as well.

Harper put down attempts to reduce emissions as being a job killer. It doesn't have to be that way.

As far as your bureaucrat remark, who do you suggest come up with the plan?

[jdobbin]

[

It is bad economics to choose policies according to the number of jobs created or lost. In the long run, we want to eliminate jobs - not create them.

Yes, we need more unemployment.

I think you are replying to another poster. I didn't write this.

[Canuck E Stan]

Harper put down attempts to reduce emissions as being a job killer. It doesn't have to be that way.

As far as your bureaucrat remark, who do you suggest come up with the plan?

I love these kind of replies-"it doesn't have to be that way".

Simplicity in an answer without giving a hardcore solution to the one presented.

[Wilber]

Having a plan is one thing, implementing it is another. When Canada signed on to Kyoto it would be reasonable to assume the people who signed it had a plan. If they did, we still don't know what it was because nothing was done. Regardless of whether or not the Conservative plan is considered adequate, if carried out, it will still be 100% better than the performance of the people who put their name on the Kyoto Accord.

[Canuck E Stan]

Having a plan is one thing, implementing it is another. When Canada signed on to Kyoto it would be reasonable to assume the people who signed it had a plan. If they did, we still don't know what it was because nothing was done. Regardless of whether or not the Conservative plan is considered adequate, if carried out, it will still be 100% better than the performance of the people who put their name on the Kyoto Accord.

Trading credits and shuffling money from one country to another will do nothing for the environmental problems that this country has.

[jdobbin]

Trading credits and shuffling money from one country to another will do nothing for the environmental problems that this country has.

And yet the Tories have embraced that idea.

[jdobbin]

I love these kind of replies-"it doesn't have to be that way".

Simplicity in an answer without giving a hardcore solution to the one presented.

Think I have suggested where emissions could be dramatically lowered if you want to read more than one post. They also wouldn't be job killers.

[Canuck E Stan]

Think I have suggested where emissions could be dramatically lowered if you want to read more than one post. They also wouldn't be job killers.

I don't have time to search though your dribble.

Better send Dion an email and invite him to come and read all your posts.

The Liberals need some expertise for their environmental rhetoric.

[Argus]

Why not kill two bird with one stones? That's about as much of emissions reductions that are reasonable given the economic cost. I'm not willing to pay more. We'll have seriously reduced emissions intensity, which is what really matter. Cleaner fuels are good, less fuels just mean people out of jobs and an even lower standard of living. Anyone that thinks that hard caps are better than intensity targets is crazy. I want the economy to be able to grow. Some don't. Personally, I like have a job and not being on EI.

What's your take on the issue? How do you propose reducing the economy by 10 or more percent a year and keeping your job?

The Tories have tried to make clean water and air sound like an emissions policy. It isn't.

I've already said that what I think would be a good policy is to get the coal fired plants off line in favour of a east-west power grid consisting of hydro power. That would create tens of thousands of jobs.

The coal fired plants are operated by provincial governments. The Liberal govt of Ontario said it would close them all by uh... well, by already. They haven't closed one, and they have plans to close any in the near future.

[Argus]

I'm in agreement on both then.

I'm a little concerned with Bairds inability to stress how important the smog/pollutant reduction measures are. Cutting asthma (and likely cancer) rates is huge, and will save the health care system billions, not to mention elimate all that lost productivity, ect..

If I were Baird, I'd be stressing this to the media. Any parent with a kid with asthma would be all over that. Cutting smog and pollutants by 50% is huge in my opinion. Let's do that too.

I have no disagreement on smog control and clean water. Harper thought initially he could do disguise these measures as an emissions policy. It wasn't. This is the reason why Ambrose went down in flames.

Ambrose was replaced because she wasn't tough enough in the House. Baird is not there to reduce GHGs. He's there to pound on the Liberals on TV and in the House.

[Argus]

We're adding at least a quarter million new citizens every year. How do you expect to easily and quickly reduce overall emissions?

You're like MikeDavid or Leafless, a one trick pony. You blame immigrants for every problem. (Leafless blames Quebec.) Argus, I suppose you'd find a way to blame immigrants for rising cancer rates.

And you're almost entirely ignorant about the problems immigration causes. It's like you live in this strange little sheltered world, and whenever anyone brings up the complexities and side affects of immigration you stick your fingers in your ears and go "na na na na na".

Of course, you say this from Quebec, where immigration is strictly controlled in both types and numbers, and of course, from a province which is not growing at all, which is, relative to the rest of the country, falling in population year after year because its people have little interest in breeding.

In fact, a quarter million is less than 1% of the population and our population

Duuuuu! And 1% over twenty years is how much again? Twenty percent? Uh huhhhh. And this has no affect, right? Hardly something that needs to be taken into consideration in a twenty year plan that involves reducing GHGs by 6%

Their amateurness is embarrassing but I'll admit that it is extremely hard to think up something new when you're in the spotlight of power.

You're not in a spotlight. What's YOUR solution? What do you propose that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg and would please the NDP and Greens?

[Argus]

I love these kind of replies-"it doesn't have to be that way".

Simplicity in an answer without giving a hardcore solution to the one presented.

Think I have suggested where emissions could be dramatically lowered if you want to read more than one post. They also wouldn't be job killers.

And you have the numbers and data to back that up too!

[jdobbin]

I don't have time to search though your dribble.

Better send Dion an email and invite him to come and read all your posts.

The Liberals need some expertise for their environmental rhetoric.

No need to get upset. Just pointing out that I have answered the very question you posed.

[Canuck E Stan]

No need to get upset. Just pointing out that I have answered the very question you posed.

Upset? I laugh each time I read a Liberal saying the solution isn't good enough,theirs is better.....but never adding......detais after the next election...or is it,the election after that one.

[jdobbin]

And you have the numbers and data to back that up too!

The numbers on how many people employed building Conawapa and the power grid to Ontario have been estimated to be in the thousands. Quebec Hydro has forecast similar numbers as has Newfoundland.

This isn't a big secret. Infrastructure projects like this create tens of thousands of jobs. They would also reduce emissions and allow for the closure of many coal plants.

As for geo-thermal, after the initial investment, it saves property owners thousands and reduces emissions dramatically. Some houses become zero emitters.

[jdobbin]

Upset? I laugh each time I read a Liberal saying the solution isn't good enough,theirs is better.....but never adding......detais after the next election...or is it,the election after that one.

I add details. I can't help if you don't read them or point out that they are being used as policy elsewhere.

[jdobbin]

The coal fired plants are operated by provincial governments. The Liberal govt of Ontario said it would close them all by uh... well, by already. They haven't closed one, and they have plans to close any in the near future.

I agree they are a problem for both emissions and smog. It's too bad they Ontario didn't buy hydro from Manitoba and Quebec when Peterson was in power. Those deals fell apart in succeeding governments.

Hopefully, the Liberals now will conclude a deal.

[jdobbin]

Ambrose was replaced because she wasn't tough enough in the House. Baird is not there to reduce GHGs. He's there to pound on the Liberals on TV and in the House.

And now Baird is being hammered by everyone on his new policy. We'll see if it survives a vote.

[noahbody]

[

Harper put down attempts to reduce emissions as being a job killer. It doesn't have to be that way.

The only way it isn't going to be that way is if corporations decide to become altruistic and not concerned about maximizing profits.

[Argus]

Ambrose was replaced because she wasn't tough enough in the House. Baird is not there to reduce GHGs. He's there to pound on the Liberals on TV and in the House.

And now Baird is being hammered by everyone on his new policy. We'll see if it survives a vote.

I think Canadians will support a careful, methodical program which takes economics into account as opposed to the "Who cares what it does to the economy" approach of Suzuki and the Liberals and NDP.