Conservative Environment Policy Ver. 6.03 (Beta)

[Canuck E Stan]

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

I know your ego says "I've said it already, why repeat it?"

Well, telling someone to look at your past posts is like Mark Holland having to look through 30 boxes old Stockwell's faxes and emails in hopes of finding something worthwhile.

You manage to repeat your disdain for the Conservatives and Harper at least 20 times a day.

Why can't you repeat yourself with your magical solution,those that you think are better than those the government has proposed?

[August1991]

Both parties are completely flummoxed by this issue and they simply don't know what to do. Yet the parties also understand that voters increasingly take the issue seriously.

Andrew Coyne had a good column about this today:

So while large emitters are expected to account for 60 megatonnes of the required 150 Mt reduction by 2020, I'll believe it when I see it. As for the remaining 90 Mt, to be extracted from other sectors, I can predict with some certainty it hasn't got a prayer. The policies that are supposed to achieve these reductions are largely the same grabbag of subsidies and regulations that the Liberals threw at the problem in one Action Plan after another, and they will fail for the same, very simple reason: because they do not impose the social costs of carbon emissions directly on individuals. And the reason for that is even simpler: because unlike large industrial emitters, individuals vote.

The environment is not politics as usual.

[jdobbin]

I know your ego says "I've said it already, why repeat it?"

Well, telling someone to look at your past posts is like Mark Holland having to look through 30 boxes old Stockwell's faxes and emails in hopes of finding something worthwhile.

You manage to repeat your disdain for the Conservatives and Harper at least 20 times a day.

Why can't you repeat yourself with your magical solution,those that you think are better than those the government has proposed?

If you know how many times I've posted then I'm sure you have already read those posts and dismissed them. In this very thread I've indicated where the government could have a significant impact.

I don't defend the Liberal record on emissions and have indicated many a time it was piss poor.

You seem quite upset and are taking things way to personal.

[jdobbin]

Al Gore weighs in on the Conservative plan.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070428/...ories_emissions

The Conservatives' new environmental platform is a "complete and total fraud" that is "designed to mislead the Canadian people," former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said Saturday.

The noted environmentalist was presenting his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in Toronto at a consumer environmental show, with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and environmentalist David Suzuki in attendance.

Gore praised Suzuki for confronting Environment Minister John Baird on Friday, saying he saw the two exchange words on TV.

When Baird told Suzuki the Conservatives were going further than any other government in Canadian history, Suzuki said it wasn't enough.

The Conservative government strategy focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. But the plan failed to spell out precisely what many of its regulations will look like.

"In my opinion, it is a complete and total fraud," Gore said. "It is designed to mislead the Canadian people."

I'm not entirely sure that Baird's plan will survive a vote.

[Canuck E Stan]

If you know how many times I've posted then I'm sure you have already read those posts and dismissed them. In this very thread I've indicated where the government could have a significant impact.

I don't defend the Liberal record on emissions and have indicated many a time it was piss poor.

You seem quite upset and are taking thins way to personal.

Sorry,I don't. All I know is that you post have posted 6492 times

( 22.1 posts per day / 3.18% of total forum posts )

I've read this thread over and I can't find anything on your posts that the Federal government can do in short order to solve this issue.

You may have time to post 6,492+ times, I don't have that time to waste reading all that to see what your "plan" is.

I don't think anybody else has either.

Why are you resisting in repeating your "better" solution, the one that won't cost jobs or minimally affect the economy?

I'm not upset,I just want to rip your "plan" to shreds,because I think it's probably bunk. Or am I wrong?

[geoffrey]

Both parties are completely flummoxed by this issue and they simply don't know what to do. Yet the parties also understand that voters increasingly take the issue seriously.

I think Coyne sums it up best in the column you posted:

As both parties are acutely aware, public attitudes to global warming are, shall we say, conflicted. We want something done about it, and we want someone else to pay. And so rather than make anyone pay in a way they can see and feel -- and act upon -- both parties endeavour instead to socialize the cost, via subsidies, or disguise it, via regulation.

Everyone wants us to make the Kyoto targets, but no one is willing to be laid off for it. If the CPC said we were going to make Kyoto, everyone would cheer for a month or two, then run them out of office next election when unemployment is double digit.

[jdobbin]

I'm not upset,I just want to rip your "plan" to shreds,because I think it's probably bunk. Or am I wrong?

I posted in this thread already that geo-thermal heating and cooling can create zero emission housing and save consumers thousands of dollars a year. A few Conservative supporters here have already detailed their savings from this investment. Manitoba Hydro is one of the few major energy companies that has promoted it.

If new subdivisions are required to install these systems upon construction, it is more expensive than a gas line but it saves money instantly for the consumer. Some houses become so efficient that they are zero emitters and their geo-thermal plant can actually "export" energy to the main grid.

Further development of the east-west hydro grid will also take coal plants off-line and put water generators online.

As to the rest of your post, it reads like a personal attack and does sound angry.

[geoffrey]

Is there anything toxic or that causes trouble with geothermal? It's the only real energy source that I haven't been able to prove (to myself anyways) isn't really that green. Perhaps we have a winner.

[jdobbin]

Is there anything toxic or that causes trouble with geothermal? It's the only real energy source that I haven't been able to prove (to myself anyways) isn't really that green. Perhaps we have a winner.

I have never heard anything toxic about it. Blueblood has the system installed already and he's a Tory supporter. I'm sure he would tell you what he pays to heat and cool his place. The savings are quite dramatic and a house can be reduced to zero emissions.

[Canuck E Stan]

I posted in this thread already that geo-thermal heating and cooling can create zero emission housing and save consumers thousands of dollars a year. A few Conservative supporters here have already detailed their savings from this investment. Manitoba Hydro is one of the few major energy companies that has promoted it.

If new subdivisions are required to install these systems upon construction, it is more expensive than a gas line but it saves money instantly for the consumer. Some houses become so efficient that they are zero emitters and their geo-thermal plant can actually "export" energy to the main grid.

Further development of the east-west hydro grid will also take coal plants off-line and put water generators online.

As to the rest of your post, it reads like a personal attack and does sound angry.

Geo- thermal is more like provincial jurisdiction than Federal, isn't it?.

Good plan for new housing,but most of us live in old housing, you know the ones that cause 99% of the problems.Any plans on how we are to dig up the cities to change to geo thermal?

How is the Federal government going to override provincial Hydro for the benefit off all provinces?

Can this Hydro stuff be done in the next two years for the benefit of Kyoto?

You've created more questions than answers for any short term solutions.

Ideas are good, let's go for 2050 for full implementation.....sorry, we need results now to appease enviromentalists like Suzuki, Dion and May.

Any other good ideas....that would work in the next 5-10 year range?

[jdobbin]

Geo- thermal is more like provincial jurisdiction than Federal, isn't it?.

Good plan for new housing,but most of us live in old housing, you know the ones that cause 99% of the problems.Any plans on how we are to dig up the cities to change to geo thermal?

How is the Federal government going to override provincial Hydro for the benefit off all provinces?

Can this Hydro stuff be done in the next two years for the benefit of Kyoto?

You've created more questions than answers for any short term solutions.

Ideas are good, let's go for 2050 for full implementation.....sorry, we need results now to appease enviromentalists like Suzuki, Dion and May.

Any other good ideas....that would work in the next 5-10 year range?

It is the start-up costs that are so huge that most provinces could use the help in making geo-thermal a national initiative. Thousands of houses are built each year in Canada. If the push was made now, emissions would drop dramatically. And if new commercial properties are included in the initiative, emissions drop even further.

In short, it leaves more gas for export, reduces Canada's emissions, creates tens of thousands of jobs and save individual Canadians thousands on the cost of heating and cooling their houses.

It isn't something that has to wait to 2050 to do.

As far as old housing goes, many families are looking to replace their old inefficient furnaces and air conditioners. Why not help them with some of those costs federally and provincially? It makes no sense to replace a furnace or air conditioner before its time but all things eventually wear out.

Seriously, this helps Canadians where it counts: in the pocket book. Throw in commercial property owners and you start to see a major transition in energy use.

[Riverwind]

I posted in this thread already that geo-thermal heating and cooling can create zero emission housing and save consumers thousands of dollars a year.

If it was that simple the market would already be switching en-mass or the government could mandate that all new housing have this type of heating.

[Canuck E Stan]

In short, it leaves more gas for export, reduces Canada's emissions, creates tens of thousands of jobs and save individual Canadians thousands on the cost of heating and cooling their houses.

It isn't something that has to wait to 2050 to do.

As far as old housing goes, many families are looking to replace their old inefficient furnaces and air conditioners. Why not help them with some of those costs federally and provincially? It makes no sense to replace a furnace or air conditioner before its time but all things eventually wear out.

Seriously, this helps Canadians where it counts: in the pocket book. Throw in commercial property owners and you start to see a major transition in energy use.

Dobbin,

If I was to build a house, it would be geo-thermal, no question.

This is the way to go, I've seen the results.

I'm afaid your solution is long term,nothing that could be done in the next 5-10 years like the Kyotonuts want.

I also didn't say 2050 was when to do, I said when fully implemented.

Yes furnaces wear out ,30-50 years after they are installed. So much in waiting til that happens.

How are you going to give the kyotonuts a short term solution when it can't be done.....or do you have an plan for short term to resolve their demands?

What about provincial hydro? I don't see Quebec lending a hand when the bucks are in the States.

[jdobbin]

If it was that simple the market would already be switching en-mass or the government could mandate that all new housing have this type of heating.

It is the start up costs that frighten the developers. Much like what the costs of what is was to extend gas lines to old and new housing developments was, geothermal needs that type of support. Look back a few decades to when people were making the changes from coal and home heating oil. It was a huge investment and governments helped all along the way.

Even today, gas transmission receives help from the government. The market takes care of the rest now but that is not how it started.

Geothermal as a nation-wide strategy could save Canadians billions as energy prices rise.

[ScottSA]

Seriously, this helps Canadians where it counts: in the pocket book. Throw in commercial property owners and you start to see a major transition in energy use.

Making people spend more helps people in the pocketbook? Only in Liberal lalaland...

[jdobbin]

If I was to build a house, it would be geo-thermal, no question.

This is the way to go, I've seen the results.

I'm afaid your solution is long term,nothing that could be done in the next 5-10 years like the Kyotonuts want.

I also didn't say 2050 was when to do, I said when fully implemented.

Yes furnaces wear out ,30-50 years after they are installed. So much in waiting til that happens.

How are you going to give the kyotonuts a short term solution when it can't be done.....or do you have an plan for short term to resolve their demands?

What about provincial hydro? I don't see Quebec lending a hand when the bucks are in the States.

I'd love to go geothermal myself but the house I bought two years ago has a new energy efficient furnace and air conditioner. I will probably go geothermal when it comes time to replace both.

Hydro Quebec has just started to experiment with geothermal and have been amazed by the results.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infoso...411.cfm?attr=20

Wishing to reduce energy consumption by optimising energy usage, the designers of the Hydro-Québec Administrative Centre decided to install a geothermal heat pump system. The system had to supply a building having three different environments, each with different needs, and subject to continental climate conditions (cold winters and warm, humid summers). In order to recuperate waste energy from one area to another, heat recovery systems had to be installed throughout the three blocks that compose the complex. The overall installation would be controlled and monitored via a computer program, which in turn would find the best solution to minimise energy consumption.

I believe that Hydro Quebec execs are about to create an initiative for homeowners to receive help to go geothermal. Why? Because it means more hydro for export.

The lifespan of a gas furnace is about 12 years.

http://www.midwestfuels.com/furnace.htm

It is obvious that conversion is a long term program but people converting now produce results in the short term.

As far as meeting the requirements of Kyoto, we probably are already out of the ballpark. However, the long list of loopholes that Baird's legislation now has probably means we won't even meet the requirements that he has in his own legislation.

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

Some analysis of Baird's plan shows many other loopholes, reported The Canadian Press:

* Major industrial emitters will not have to start cutting their emissions until 2010.

* In 2010, polluters will be able to meet 80 per cent of their reduction obligations either by buying credits from a technology research fund or helping to fund green projects internationally, leaving only a fraction devoted to actual reductions. If a company's production booms, it could actually increase carbon output.

* Some polluters who just started operations won't have to make any reductions at all in the next five years.

* There are no taxes directed at Canadians to change consumption patterns.

* A promise to regulate better efficiencies in the automobile industry will kick in for model year 2011. But because the commitment hinges on the negotiation on a new North American standard, there is no guarantee any changes will actually occur.

There are some things I like about Tory policy so far. I think the CF lights do and will save money. I converted to them when I first moved in because my pot lights in the basement tended to blow at the rate of one a month. None of my CF bulbs have gone. My only worry: Mercury from the lights. We need to be able to recycle these things.

Next, I like the Tory commitment to mass transit. We need more of it.

Baird can do more.

[ScottSA]

I converted to them when I first moved in because my pot lights in the basement tended to blow at the rate of one a month.

Usually trimming the buds off below the lights helps the life of the bulbs. When all that gooey resin starts smearing on the light, it blows really fast. How do you manage to get a one-month grow cycle though? *chortle*

[jdobbin]

How do you manage to get a one-month grow cycle though? *chortle*

I play a collection of political speeches and find that it is the perfect fertilizer.

[Canuck E Stan]

The lifespan of a gas furnace is about 12 years.

http://www.midwestfuels.com/furnace.htm

I think your source of information(or they sell bad furnaces) from Midwest fuels about life span of furnaces is bogus.

CMHC for Consumers

However, a good furnace will last 25 years. A poor one may break down prematurely at 15 years. With lifetimes of this length, and with furnace design and model changes, it is hard to predict which furnace will provide the best service.

There are two factors to help you in your choice. Pick a furnace with a long heat exchanger warranty, 20 years or more. If the manufacturer is willing to back the most expensive part of their appliance for a long time, this should inspire some confidence.

Any house I've owned the furnace was at least 30 years old.Changed furnaces for efficiency reason only not because of breakdown.Twelve years on a furnace life seems awfully short.

[jdobbin]

Any house I've owned the furnace was at least 30 years old.Changed furnaces for efficiency reason only not because of breakdown.Twelve years on a furnace life seems awfully short.

Last furnace our family had lasted 15 years. Maybe its the pets that take their toll or not surfacing them. I get mine serviced and cleaned so I would indeed be happy with 20 years. My central air is only a few years old so it will be a while before the geothermal option would look good for my family.

I might change my mind if natural gas prices put the squeeze on.

[jdobbin]

Denmark's economy is chugging along nicely. They haven't been hurt by trying to meet Kyoto targets.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...428?hub=SciTech

ust as Environment Minister John Baird was bragging that Canada now has one of the "most aggressive" anti-climate change plans in the world, Denmark's energy minister was inadvertently helping to punch holes in the claim.

Flemming Hansen, on a two-day trip to Canada, was explaining to an audience at Carleton University on Thursday how renewable sources would account for 30 per cent of Danish energy consumption by 2025. (Canada's is currently 17 per cent).

The oil-exporting country has long made consumers and industry pay hefty carbon taxes on gasoline and cars. Its energy consumption has been reduced to 1975 levels even as its economy has continued to grow.

Because of drastic measures taken over the last decade, the country is struggling to find additional ways to cut emissions and meet its Kyoto commitment - but it still believes it'll come in somewhere around 3 per cent over the target.

That's considerably more aggressive than Baird's plan, under which Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to "stabilize" from last year's levels by 2010 - 38 per cent higher than the Kyoto commitment.

[August1991]

Denmark's economy is chugging along nicely. They haven't been hurt by trying to meet Kyoto targets.

Denmark is a small country with a concentrated population, relatively temperate climate and not dependent on natural resources. Kyoto fixes 1990 as a base year - a year when the Danish economy, like much of Europe, was at a relative peak.

I agree however Dobbin that North Americans (including Canadians) are profligate with energy, largely because we don't pay the full cost of our energy.

----

I don't agree entirely with the following columnist but he states well one good point:

The great C.S. Lewis once wrote that "of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

By that definition, John Baird, the federal Environment Minister, has become an omnipotent busybody.

Has it really come to this? A government minister thinks he knows better than you and I what light bulbs we should use in the name of the common good?

Indeed, so sure is Mr. Baird of his superior understanding of lightbulbology that he intends to regulate out of existence the bulbs most preferred by Canadians. There are to be no expensive public service ads urging us to "go fluorescent." Instead, one day soon Mr. Baird will merely put his signature on an order and -- flick! -- all 33 million of us will be made to buy his bulbs instead of incandescent ones.

For a government that just a year ago campaigned to make government smaller, this is a surprising intrusion.

Lorne Gunter, National Post

[hiti]

This is what Steve gave us http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives...ADAPOLITICS.jpg plus a ban on cheap light bulbs and we will be forced to use dangerous mercury light bulbs.

Did Steve and his bulldog forget to check out the research that GE is doing for an energy efficient light bulb that will not use mercury?

Guess they did, amongst so many things they forgot to do.

[geoffrey]

Dangerous mercury bulbs?! Pfftt. That's so ridiculous.

I'm sure Suzuki had CFL's until Harper's plan, and then he immediately switched to incandesant to protest. What's more dangerous, the ice caps melting or a little mercury (actually less, in my link provided, then is emitted by using an incandescent).

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have mercury contained in air tight blubs than in the air. Your choice though, really.

[hiti]

I don't need light bulbs breaking and spilling mercury in my home. CFL's give me a headache so I will wait for the new GE bulbs and a liberal government.