GHGs stabilized under Dion, Martin and McGuinty

[hiti]

The Conservatives like to claim that the Liberals did nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, if you take a look at this recently released report from Environment Canada, you will see that emissions were essentially stabilized from 2003 - 2005 (the last year for which data is available and the last year of Liberal government). I note that this was during the entire tenure of the Martin Government.

http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2007/06/...facts-maam.html

Quote: Short Term Comparisons: 2003-2005 Since 2003, growth in GHG emissions has been quite minor (about 2 Mt, or only 0.3%). Though there were some large increases in certain areas (notably Transportation and, to a smaller extent, Agriculture) these were offset by a significant decline in Electricty and Heat Generation. In addition, there was an uncharacteristically small emission increase from the fossil fuel industries.

# The flattenning of the growth curve between 2003 and 2005 is due primarily to a significant reduction in emissions from electricity production (reduced coal and increased hydro and nuclear generation), coupled with reduced demand for heating fuels due to warmer winters and a reduced rate of increase in fossil fuel production.

# Long term growth, nevertheless remains large. Between 1990 and 2005 significant increases in oil and gas production, much of which have been provided to the United States, have resulted in a significant increase in the emissions associated with the production and transportation of fuel for export. In 2005, total emissions associated with these exports were 73 Mt, a 162 percent increase over the 1990 level of 28 Mt.

http://tinyurl.com/349s9t

What did the liberals with Dion as Environment Minister really do for the environment?

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/070130_enviro_bkgndr_en.pdf

[betsy]

The Conservatives like to claim that the Liberals did nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, if you take a look at this recently released report from Environment Canada, you will see that emissions were essentially stabilized from 2003 - 2005 (the last year for which data is available and the last year of Liberal government). I note that this was during the entire tenure of the Martin Government.

http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2007/06/...facts-maam.html

Quote: Short Term Comparisons: 2003-2005 Since 2003, growth in GHG emissions has been quite minor (about 2 Mt, or only 0.3%). Though there were some large increases in certain areas (notably Transportation and, to a smaller extent, Agriculture) these were offset by a significant decline in Electricty and Heat Generation. In addition, there was an uncharacteristically small emission increase from the fossil fuel industries.

# The flattenning of the growth curve between 2003 and 2005 is due primarily to a significant reduction in emissions from electricity production (reduced coal and increased hydro and nuclear generation), coupled with reduced demand for heating fuels due to warmer winters and a reduced rate of increase in fossil fuel production.

# Long term growth, nevertheless remains large. Between 1990 and 2005 significant increases in oil and gas production, much of which have been provided to the United States, have resulted in a significant increase in the emissions associated with the production and transportation of fuel for export. In 2005, total emissions associated with these exports were 73 Mt, a 162 percent increase over the 1990 level of 28 Mt.

http://tinyurl.com/349s9t

What did the liberals with Dion as Environment Minister really do for the environment?

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/070130_enviro_bkgndr_en.pdf

You've got the liberal.ca and one blog for a link. What can I say?

BUT, it's not only the Conservatives who are critical of the Liberal's inaction regarding the environment.

There is one other reliable source who was very vocal about it.

Ignatieff.

[Leafless]

The Conservatives like to claim that the Liberals did nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, if you take a look at this recently released report from Environment Canada, you will see that emissions were essentially stabilized from 2003 - 2005 (the last year for which data is available and the last year of Liberal government). I note that this was during the entire tenure of the Martin Government.

http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2007/06/...facts-maam.html

There is nothing significant in the article that makes the topic worthy of any type of intelligent discussion.

[Keepitsimple]

Although your post is partisan driven, it's actually a point worth raising - but for a different reason. Again, we go back to why the Europeans chose 1990 as the base year for Kyoto. We've often talked on this blog about the reasons being the windfall in emission reductions caused by the closing of so many dirty factories in Eastern Europe as a result of the collapse of communism. Also, in the UK, government policy caused the closing of almost all the coal mines and the "Dash for Gas" came about. These two elements allowed the Europeans to claim large reductions in emissions from 1990 to 1996. Since then they have done little and in fact, emissions are going up.

But the other side of the coin is North America. In the early 90's, we were in the throes of a depression - remember Bob Rae in Ontario? By the later 90's, we, along with the US had our economies firing on all cylinders so of course, our emissions went way up with factories and transportation going full blast. With Sept. 11, the economy turned down. Now we're going full speed again....but STARTING to think about doing things better.

Once again, the choice of the year 1990 by the Europeans was a self-serving one.

[Michael Bluth]

Jason Cherniak was Stéphane Dion's Blog Campaign Co-Chair and sat on the Internet Task Force of the Liberal Renewal Commission. He is president of the Richmond Hill Federal Liberal Riding Association and York Region Area Director for the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario).

[gc1765]

If you guys wanted a better source, you could have tried google:

"Since 2003, growth in GHG emissions has been quite minor (about 2 Mt, or only 0.3%). Though there were some large increases in certain areas (notably Transportation and, to a smaller extent, Agriculture) these were offset by a significant decline in Electricty and Heat Generation. In addition, there was an uncharacteristically small emission increase from the fossil fuel industries.

* Between 2003 and 2005, despite increasing electricity demand, greenhouse gas emisions from generation decreased by over 6 Mt. due to a reduction in emissions from coal-fired generation and an increase in nuclear and hydro electricity production."

Link

When did Dion become environment minister again? 2004? And yet he gets blamed for doing nothing? I must admit even I (and, apparently, Ignatieff) got fooled into thinking that Dion was a hypocrite who let emissions skyrocket, but that was just a lie.

[Keepitsimple]

If you guys wanted a better source, you could have tried google:

"Since 2003, growth in GHG emissions has been quite minor (about 2 Mt, or only 0.3%). Though there were some large increases in certain areas (notably Transportation and, to a smaller extent, Agriculture) these were offset by a significant decline in Electricty and Heat Generation. In addition, there was an uncharacteristically small emission increase from the fossil fuel industries.

* Between 2003 and 2005, despite increasing electricity demand, greenhouse gas emisions from generation decreased by over 6 Mt. due to a reduction in emissions from coal-fired generation and an increase in nuclear and hydro electricity production."

Link

When did Dion become environment minister again? 2004? And yet he gets blamed for doing nothing? I must admit even I (and, apparently, Ignatieff) got fooled into thinking that Dion was a hypocrite who let emissions skyrocket, but that was just a lie.

While Dion personally may get too much blame for the Liberals inaction, he makes himself a target by claiming to be the "champion" of the environment and a "hero". Although he may have only became Minister in 2004, presumably with all his green credentials and leadership skills, he could have had SOME influence on the government through the years 1995-2003 - but they did nothing.

[betsy]

Jason Cherniak was Stéphane Dion's Blog Campaign Co-Chair and sat on the Internet Task Force of the Liberal Renewal Commission. He is president of the Richmond Hill Federal Liberal Riding Association and York Region Area Director for the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario).

Bingo! That explains the blog!

To borrow from Madmax: HOSED AGAIN!

Except the said phrase is not loosely used ...or mis-used in this particular case.

nya-nya-nya

LOL.

[gc1765]

Bingo! That explains the blog!

To borrow from Madmax: HOSED AGAIN!

Except the said phrase is not loosely used ...or mis-used in this particular case.

nya-nya-nya

LOL.

Are you purposely ignoring the link from the government website that both I and hiti posted?

[ScottSA]

Bingo! That explains the blog!

To borrow from Madmax: HOSED AGAIN!

Except the said phrase is not loosely used ...or mis-used in this particular case.

nya-nya-nya

LOL.

Are you purposely ignoring the link from the government website that both I and hiti posted?

There's a great deal from that site that you're ignoring too, including this:

On average, Canadian homes and businesses required lower energy quantities for space heating in the winters of 2005 and 2004 compared to the winter of 2003 due to milder temperatures. In 2005, Heating Degree Days (HDD), an indicator of the necessity for space heating due to the severity of cold weather, were down 5 percent compared to 2003 and 2.2 percent compared to 2004, both on a National basis. This fact almost certainly had an impact on fossil fuel consumption, specifically in the residential and commercial/institutional sectors where emissions declined by a total of 4.4 Mt in the two year period.

and this:

The fossil fuel industries1, consisting of oil, gas and coal production, refining and transmission showed a rather small (0.5% or 3/4 Mt) growth between 2003 and 2005. During the period, average oil and gas production increased by only 1.2% annually. This appears to reflect the impact of hurricane Katrina on North American markets, as well as decreased synthetic oil production following a nine month shutdown at a major oilsands facility (due to a fire).

But guess what we don't see? We don't see any government measures. Nothing. Nada. Dion did squat. We see a useless treaty signed and emmissions go down for a couple years due to the very thing these morons want to stop...warmer weather. If one takes the logic of this and runs with it, it would make more sense for us to belch CO2 into the atmosphere, causing more warmth, reducing the need for heating, thereby reducing CO2. This whole GW thing is a fucking howler, and Dion is the butt of the joke

[BC_chick]

So the plot thickens. I have to admit that, like gc, I also believed the snivelling liars. These guys are pretty much caught up to 13 years of Liberal lying in just less than 18 months.

If I were Dion, I'd take this info and make an my attack ad based on my accomplishments and let Harper dig himself deeper with the reverse "soldiers in the streets" ad campaign.

[betsy]

If I were Dion, I'd take this info and make an my attack ad based on my accomplishments

Yep! I'd brag about my award!

In December 2005, environmental groups awarded the Liberal government with the “Fossil of the Day” award at the Montreal conference that was being chaired by Stephane Dion (ECO, December 2, 2005,)

http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco/2005/COP...h%20Dec%202.pdf and ECO, December 3, 2005, http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco/2005/COP11/ECOCOP11En06

[ScottSA]

So the plot thickens. I have to admit that, like gc, I also believed the snivelling liars. These guys are pretty much caught up to 13 years of Liberal lying in just less than 18 months.

If I were Dion, I'd take this info and make an my attack ad based on my accomplishments and let Harper dig himself deeper with the reverse "soldiers in the streets" ad campaign.

Do you actually read anything? Did you see the absence of Liberal causation? Does that not make any difference at all to you?

[White Doors]

So the plot thickens. I have to admit that, like gc, I also believed the snivelling liars. These guys are pretty much caught up to 13 years of Liberal lying in just less than 18 months.

If I were Dion, I'd take this info and make an my attack ad based on my accomplishments and let Harper dig himself deeper with the reverse "soldiers in the streets" ad campaign.

Do you actually read anything? Did you see the absence of Liberal causation? Does that not make any difference at all to you?

Nope. she has her blinders on and that's it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The Conservatives like to claim that the Liberals did nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, if you take a look at this recently released report from Environment Canada, you will see that emissions were essentially stabilized from 2003 - 2005 (the last year for which data is available and the last year of Liberal government). I note that this was during the entire tenure of the Martin Government.

http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2007/06/...facts-maam.html

Quote: Short Term Comparisons: 2003-2005 Since 2003, growth in GHG emissions has been quite minor (about 2 Mt, or only 0.3%). Though there were some large increases in certain areas (notably Transportation and, to a smaller extent, Agriculture) these were offset by a significant decline in Electricty and Heat Generation. In addition, there was an uncharacteristically small emission increase from the fossil fuel industries.

# The flattenning of the growth curve between 2003 and 2005 is due primarily to a significant reduction in emissions from electricity production (reduced coal and increased hydro and nuclear generation), coupled with reduced demand for heating fuels due to warmer winters and a reduced rate of increase in fossil fuel production.

# Long term growth, nevertheless remains large. Between 1990 and 2005 significant increases in oil and gas production, much of which have been provided to the United States, have resulted in a significant increase in the emissions associated with the production and transportation of fuel for export. In 2005, total emissions associated with these exports were 73 Mt, a 162 percent increase over the 1990 level of 28 Mt.

http://tinyurl.com/349s9t

What did the liberals with Dion as Environment Minister really do for the environment?

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/070130_enviro_bkgndr_en.pdf

and the verdict about how much effcet this had on the overall world's climate is.....

(drumroll please).....................................

ZERO!!!

[Topaz]

This "13 years and they did nothing" slogan the Cons always use when talking about the Libs no matter what Ministry is talking is getting a little much! First by stating this, they are insulting the majority of voters who voted for the Libs, not once but 3X's! As far as the pollution in Ontario, unless the US states can cut their pollution Ontario and Quebec and the other Eastern provinces will always have out of control smog. I still can't believe will harm Alberta's oil industry, when Baird said they would come down on industries. BTW, can anyone tell me how long the production in the oil sands will take to extract???

[ScottSA]

This "13 years and they did nothing" slogan the Cons always use when talking about the Libs no matter what Ministry is talking is getting a little much! First by stating this, they are insulting the majority of voters who voted for the Libs, not once but 3X's! As far as the pollution in Ontario, unless the US states can cut their pollution Ontario and Quebec and the other Eastern provinces will always have out of control smog. I still can't believe will harm Alberta's oil industry, when Baird said they would come down on industries. BTW, can anyone tell me how long the production in the oil sands will take to extract???

Engrish preeze?

[betsy]

This "13 years and they did nothing" slogan the Cons always use when talking about the Libs no matter what Ministry is talking is getting a little much! First by stating this, they are insulting the majority of voters who voted for the Libs, not once but 3X's!

Once, they made a mistake. 3 times....they're pretty dim! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

But anyway, let's look at this on a different angle. The Cons are just doing the Liberal voters a favor...by whacking the Liberals for insulting the Liberal voters! Let's face it, Liberals must think their loyal voters are so stupid! Lol!

[hiti]

Bingo! That explains the blog!

To borrow from Madmax: HOSED AGAIN!

Except the said phrase is not loosely used ...or mis-used in this particular case.

nya-nya-nya

LOL.

Are you purposely ignoring the link from the government website that both I and hiti posted?

Too much kool-aid.

If the Liberals did nothing why are several of their programs that this "new" government canceled being brought back by Steve and his bulldog?

If the Liberals did nothing, why is Baird stealing their programs?

The 13 year figure itself is inherently dishonest. Canada never ratified the Kyoto Protocol until late 2002, less than five years ago. The Chretien government did so despite the screams, from the same basic party that Baird now belongs to, that we would face certain doom. While Chretien failed to take action, and should be vilified for that failure, it must be understood that the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party was very effective at opposing Kyoto. They enlisted their friends in the oil patch and in the US government to bring the science into question, scare the general population into thinking that Kyoto meant certain ruin, and to try to undermine the process. When Baird forgets to mention that, he is committing a lie of omission.

The most effective part of that undermining was the pressure placed on Russia, mostly by Steve Harper's good friend George Bush, not to ratify the protocol. Without Russia's ratification the deal would have fallen apart. Russia didn't ratify the deal until 2004. As a result, it became international law in early 2005.

Now there is no doubt that the Chretien government should have acted sooner and should have had a solid plan up and running before they ratified the deal, but every time John Baird says something along the lines of "13 years of Liberal inaction" he is lying. He's been around long enough to know that too.

The other highly misleading statement that Baird likes to spout from his gaping maw is that Dion is somehow personally responsible for the Liberals' failure to meet Kyoto. That's not true either. Dion did not become Minister of the Environment until Paul Martin's last, very short, term. While Dion may or may not have had input in caucus and in cabinet before that time, it was not his file. Any influence he had would have been limited and it was Prime Minister Chretien calling the shots. Baird knows this, as does every member of parliament.

There is one other set of lies that Mr. Baird likes to tell. He likes to try to make us think that meeting our Kyoto commitments would destroy the country financially.

Throughout human history there has never been a technological advance that did not increase wealth, or at least the wealth of working people. The discovery of the pointed stick brought us more food. The industrial revolution brought us from subsistence farming and serfdom to a middle class and at least the illusion of democracy. The invention of the automobile brought us wealth as well as mobility. The computer age brought money and knowledge. Technology creates wealth for working people.

Mr. Baird tells us that developing and implementing the technologies required to reduce our emissions will bring us poverty. In this case, I don't know if John Baird is purposely lying to us or whether he's just completely ignorant. Perhaps the brain flukes ate that part of his brain too.

The other part of Baird's economic lie, is another lie of omission. Members of the EU have already said that they want to levy trade sanctions against countries that aren't compliant with the Kyoto Protocol. If we don't meet our obligations, they will impose tariffs and duties on us. So will the wealthy, and Kyoto compliant, countries of Asia. If Mr. Baird really wants to hurt the Canadian economy, having the EU and Japan impose sanctions on us is a sure way to do it.

Mr. Baird never mentions any of this of course, yet he must be aware of the many calls for sanctions. Unless he wants all of our trade to be with the United States, Mexico, and China, there is no excuse for Baird not taking this into consideration.

Mr. Baird is currently rolling out a green plan based on the original Clean Air Act that he dragged into parliament dead on arrival. Jack Layton and the NDP asked for that act to be revived in a special all-party committee. The act was rewritten and, according to most parliamentarians and environmentalists, is now a very powerful piece of legislation. John Baird is refusing to bring the act into the House to be debated and voted on. Instead he is continuing his pattern of prevarication, cowardice, and irresponsibility. The opposition parties should insist that he brings the act forward or bring down the Harper government.

p.s. anyone who lies as much as Baird must be called Mr.

Why Canada's greenhouse gas record stinks

"The Conservatives threw out the best of what the Liberals did and kept the worst," Bennett said of the Clean Air Act. http://tinyurl.com/26gn2y

[ScottSA]

The most effective part of that undermining was the pressure placed on Russia, mostly by Steve Harper's good friend George Bush, not to ratify the protocol. Without Russia's ratification the deal would have fallen apart. Russia didn't ratify the deal until 2004. As a result, it became international law in early 2005.

Ummmm....no. It became the same treaty it was before, with one more signature. Despite what the bumper sticker hemp sandal crowd thinks, treaties are not "international law" to non-signatories. Kyoto is a multilateral treaty that applies to those countries which sign it. The ones who don't sign it largely ignore it, and the ones who do sign it ignore it while making pious announcements about how well they're going to do next year. Meanwhile, China puffs along filling the skies with enough pollution that it reaches North America...

[hiti]

One really should update their knowledge and not keep on sprouting the Cons rhetoric.

Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji announced on September 3, 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development that China has approved the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/news-ar...o-Protocol.html

With 12.7% of the world's total, China is the second largest emitter of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions after the United States. http://tinyurl.com/29dmy3

China is doing a better job than the US

[ScottSA]

One really should update their knowledge and not keep on sprouting the Cons rhetoric.

Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji announced on September 3, 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development that China has approved the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/news-ar...o-Protocol.html

Ummm...of course China approved it. It doesn't call for China to reduce emmissions. And none of this makes Kyoto into "international law."

[hiti]

One really should update their knowledge and not keep on sprouting the Cons rhetoric.

Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji announced on September 3, 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development that China has approved the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/news-ar...o-Protocol.html

Ummm...of course China approved it. It doesn't call for China to reduce emmissions. And none of this makes Kyoto into "international law."

I was responding to your "meanwhile China puffs along" comment

As for Kyoto being International law, it did so on February 15, 2005 and Stephane Dion had a big part in making that happen at the Montreal conference. It was largely due to his effort that an agreement was reached and he was called a "hero" by environmentalists.

A point that Steve's Torys took and twisted in one of their attack ads.

[ScottSA]

One really should update their knowledge and not keep on sprouting the Cons rhetoric.

Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji announced on September 3, 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development that China has approved the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/news-ar...o-Protocol.html

Ummm...of course China approved it. It doesn't call for China to reduce emmissions. And none of this makes Kyoto into "international law."

I was responding to your "meanwhile China puffs along" comment

As for Kyoto being International law, it did so on February 15, 2005 and Stephane Dion had a big part in making that happen at the Montreal conference. It was largely due to his effort that an agreement was reached and he was called a "hero" by environmentalists.

A point that Steve's Torys took and twisted in one of their attack ads.

China is puffing along. It is allowed to increase its emmissions substantially under Kyoto.

I think you'd better read up on what constitutes "international law". Kyoto is a multilateral treaty, like the landmine treaty that everyone, except the countries who actually use landmines, signed. It, like the Kyoto Treaty, is not international law. In order for it to become international law, the UNSC would have to pass a resolution requiring it, in which case most of the world would simply pull out of the UN, or everyone would have to sign it. Even then, it would only be binding for those countries which actually stay party to it.

[Canuck E Stan]

name='hiti' date='Jun 14 2007, 02:03 PM' post='228658']

The 13 year figure itself is inherently dishonest. Canada never ratified the Kyoto Protocol until late 2002, less than five years ago.

Kyoto was signed in 98 more than 9 years ago.

The Chretien government did so despite the screams, from the same basic party that Baird now belongs to, that we would face certain doom. While Chretien failed to take action, and should be vilified for that failure, it must be understood that the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party was very effective at opposing Kyoto.

They enlisted their friends in the oil patch and in the US government to bring the science into question, scare the general population into thinking that Kyoto meant certain ruin, and to try to undermine the process. When Baird forgets to mention that, he is committing a lie of omission.

Who had a majority government? Must have been a very effective opposition.

Now there is no doubt that the Chretien government should have acted sooner and should have had a solid plan up and running before they ratified the deal, but every time John Baird says something along the lines of "13 years of Liberal inaction" he is lying. He's been around long enough to know that too.

Signed in 98....Majority government for three elections.

Inaction? you bet.

The other highly misleading statement that Baird likes to spout from his gaping maw is that Dion is somehow personally responsible for the Liberals' failure to meet Kyoto. That's not true either. Dion did not become Minister of the Environment until Paul Martin's last, very short, term. While Dion may or may not have had input in caucus and in cabinet before that time, it was not his file. Any influence he had would have been limited and it was Prime Minister Chretien calling the shots. Baird knows this, as does every member of parliament.

You're making it sound like Chretien was even calling the shots in Paul Martin's 3 year term as Prime Minister.

It isn't Baird who's committing a lie of omission.

Doing a lot of bending of facts here dude.