Government Rejects Kyoto Bill

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070821/...o_bill_response

he Conservative government has thumbed its nose at the opposition's legislative attempts to force compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, simply republishing its own greenhouse-gas reduction plan as an official response.

The reaction is likely to spur a fresh political and even legal battle over what the government is required to do.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois pushed through the Kyoto Implementation Act last June, a law that says the government must submit a "Climate Change Plan" for meeting the requirements under the international agreement within 60 days.

The "plan" it published Tuesday repeats the argument that trying to meet Kyoto by 2012 would wreak economic disaster on the Canadian economy. It estimates astronomical gas-price hikes and catastrophic job losses.

The government underlines that it is moving aggressively to reduce emissions with a plan it unveiled last April, which sets targets for industry, introduces incentives and provides assistance to the provinces for their own related projects.

"By utilizing mandatory regulations, focused program measures that support technology, and by supporting provincial and territorial actions, this government has set Canada on a realistic and balanced pathway to a low carbon future," says the document.

It would appear that when Parliament resumes, the Opposition will hammer the government on this and perhaps take them to court.

[geoffrey]

Well, it's actually impossible, so the court can do whatever it wants but it still can't happen. You can't wish into existance 13 years of Liberal non-action.

"In 2008, I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it. "

- Stephane Dion

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1659055/posts

"I think our party has got into a mess on the environment," he said. "As a practical matter of politics, nobody knows what (Kyoto) is or what it commits us to.”

– Michael Ignatieff

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/84052

So why is Dion willfully leading his party into lying to the faces of all Canadians? The Liberals should be ashamed. Canadians aren't stupid.

And why can't Dion make up his mind? The man isn't a leader, he's a little pawn to special interests. Canada will never elect such a fool.

[jdobbin]

Well, it's actually impossible, so the court can do whatever it wants but it still can't happen. You can't wish into existance 13 years of Liberal non-action.

So why is Dion willfully leading his party into lying to the faces of all Canadians? The Liberals should be ashamed. Canadians aren't stupid.

And why can't Dion make up his mind? The man isn't a leader, he's a little pawn to special interests. Canada will never elect such a fool.

The Conservatives can say it can't happen but they are unlikely to get away with ignoring a bill that has been passed by the majority of Parliament unless they want to go to an election on the issue.

As far as who Canadians will chose in the next election, the last published poll had the Tories at 36% and the Liberals at 33%.

And in terms of the environment, the views of Canadians are that government is not doing enough on Kyoto.

[geoffrey]

The Conservatives can say it can't happen but they are unlikely to get away with ignoring a bill that has been passed by the majority of Parliament unless they want to go to an election on the issue.

Sure they will 'get away with it'. The Liberals got away with ignoring an international treaty with serious financial implications for much longer than this government will last.

The Conservatives aren't the only ones... Dion has said he doesn't believe it was possible (that is, until someone else was in charge). Are the Conservatives really that more capable than the Liberals on this issue?

Why does Dion believe Harper and Baird are a far superior team to Martin and Dion?

Considering that Harper is capable of doing it, but Dion isn't, I certainly expect Dion to vote Tory next election. The planet's future is in his hands.

As far as who Canadians will chose in the next election, the last published poll had the Tories at 36% and the Liberals at 33%.

Angus Reid, when comparing all the parties, found the CPC way more trusted on the environment issue:

Specifically, as confidence in the Liberals plummeted to 18%, the NDP obtained support from 15% of Canadians, and the Greens pulled in a whopping 34%—the highest level of support for any federal party. The Conservative base of support remained steady at 26%.

Source: http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.c...d=44&page=5

And in terms of the environment, the views of Canadians are that government is not doing enough on Kyoto.

And their view seems to be that Dion is even less trustworthy. He even agrees! He said he couldn't, but believes Baird can!

[jdobbin]

Sure they will 'get away with it'. The Liberals got away with ignoring an international treaty with serious financial implications for much longer than this government will last.

The Conservatives aren't the only ones... Dion has said he doesn't believe it was possible (that is, until someone else was in charge). Are the Conservatives really that more capable than the Liberals on this issue?

Why does Dion believe Harper and Baird are a far superior team to Martin and Dion?

Considering that Harper is capable of doing it, but Dion isn't, I certainly expect Dion to vote Tory next election. The planet's future is in his hands.

Angus Reid, when comparing all the parties, found the CPC way more trusted on the environment issue:

Specifically, as confidence in the Liberals plummeted to 18%, the NDP obtained support from 15% of Canadians, and the Greens pulled in a whopping 34%—the highest level of support for any federal party. The Conservative base of support remained steady at 26%.

Source: http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.c...d=44&page=5

And their view seems to be that Dion is even less trustworthy. He even agrees! He said he couldn't, but believes Baird can!

The reasons the Liberals got away with it is because the Conservatives didn't believe in it in the first place. They were content that Kyoto was not really being implemented.

The poll you are referring to was in April. I was thinking of this poll on what people thought about Harper's policy.

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.c...d=68&page=4

VANCOUVER - June 11, 2007] – The majority of the country is confident that the federal government can lead the world in fighting climate change, but they don’t like the way Stephen Harper wants to drop emissions, a new Angus Reid Strategies poll has found.

During the recent G8 summit in Germany, Prime Minister Harper asserted that Canada could be a world leader in fighting global warming. The online survey of a representative national sample shows that 57 per cent agree that the Harper government could in fact be such a model for the world. Confidence was especially high in Atlantic Canada (63%) and British Columbia (62%).

However, three-in-five Canadians (60%) did not agree with Harper’s proposed strategy for reducing carbon emissions using intensity-based targets. Under this plan, companies will reduce the amount of carbon emissions per individual unit produced—for each barrel of oil, for instance—but will not have to reduce emissions overall. Atlantic Canada (69%), British Columbia (62%) and Ontario (62%) are particularly opposed to this scheme.

As far as what Canadians think about Baird:

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.c...d=49&page=5

– Canadians are not satisfied with the explanation provided by their environment minister for the federal government's decision to scrap the Kyoto Protocol, an Angus Reid Strategies poll has found.

The online survey of a representative national sample asked Canadians to review the conclusions of two reports on the economic impact of climate change. A third of respondents (32%) think Environment Minister John Baird's assessment of the consequences of implementing the Kyoto Protocol in Canada—driving the country into a deep economic recession, leading to job losses, and increasing gas prices—is accurate, while 55 per cent disagree with his views. Baird's conclusions were rejected by a majority of respondents in every region except Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

The Tories can continue to attack on Kyoto but they will have to convince the public that their plan is worth supporting. Many polls say they haven't done that.

[geoffrey]

It's not about attacking Kyoto. It's realising that it's now too late to get there.

Time to move on and do something productive instead of partisan bickering. Dion and co. are leading the charge with this latest hypocracy.

[jdobbin]

It's not about attacking Kyoto. It's realising that it's now too late to get there.

Time to move on and do something productive instead of partisan bickering. Dion and co. are leading the charge with this latest hypocracy.

It seems to me that it is the entire Opposition that is telling the Tories they are not doing enough and the polls that have come after the one you posted confirm that.

[geoffrey]

Being productive would be forcing a plan through that would work. Being partisan is forcing a bill through that cannot possibly be followed.

[jdobbin]

Being productive would be forcing a plan through that would work. Being partisan is forcing a bill through that cannot possibly be followed.

I guess the public is being very partisan when they say the Tories are not doing enough.

[Canuck E Stan]

Being productive would be forcing a plan through that would work. Being partisan is forcing a bill through that cannot possibly be followed.

Nicely said.

[Michael Bluth]

Being productive would be forcing a plan through that would work. Being partisan is forcing a bill through that cannot possibly be followed.

Exactly. But 'the public' must be right. There has been no feasible plan proposed by the Opposition. Yet ... there must be some magical way to meet the Kyoto targets.

[geoffrey]

Exactly. But 'the public' must be right. There has been no feasible plan proposed by the Opposition. Yet ... there must be some magical way to meet the Kyoto targets.

Well, we know that Dion can't meet the targets, he said so himself. But he has alot of faith in Mr. Baird's ability, so I wouldn't worry. He admitted his inferiority.

[Pliny]

It is true that most people do not know what Kyoto is about, especially Environmentalists who think it is about saving the planet.

It is the child of Maurice Strong, a Canadian, and it is a typical political-economic means of transferring wealth between nations and is not particularly about saving the environment. What is needed, if global warming or green house gasses are a problem, and I agree that if we can eliminate them then lets do so, but what is needed are tchonological solutions. Moving money around the globe isn't a solution. What Kyoto is telling me is that technology will not change until at least 2012, no matter what innovations present themselves, and the UN is certain of that.

Does anyone believe in national sovereignty anymore? Because if it is being sold to the UN, as it appears, I would prefer it were sold to the US.

[kimmy]

The Conservatives can say it can't happen but they are unlikely to get away with ignoring a bill that has been passed by the majority of Parliament unless they want to go to an election on the issue.

As far as who Canadians will chose in the next election, the last published poll had the Tories at 36% and the Liberals at 33%.

And in terms of the environment, the views of Canadians are that government is not doing enough on Kyoto.

If they want to pursue an election on this issue, let them. Take it to the voters.

I would greatly prefer that than seeing them take it to a court challenge, which seems a weaselly way to push this if they feel it's such a noble cause.

And I don't think it is a coincidence that the Liberals are suddenly gung-ho about a Kyoto implementation now that they're not the ones who'll be stuck with actually implementing the god damned thing. I suspect it is a lot easier pulling the trigger when the gun is pointed at somebody else's face and not your own.

Perhaps Harper should take a page from the Chretien/Martin playbook and promise to implement the bill, then send it to some committee and let it sit in the dark until the next election. That would probably make any legal action futile, I would suspect. "Hey, we're doing it. See? We've got top men working on it right now."

-k

[jdobbin]

Well, we know that Dion can't meet the targets, he said so himself. But he has alot of faith in Mr. Baird's ability, so I wouldn't worry. He admitted his inferiority.

We have already seen the Conservatives lose one court challenge on the Canadian Wheat Board. It sets the precedent that the government must obey the will of Parliament. If they feel they can't, they can call an election on the issue.

Edited August 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

If they want to pursue an election on this issue, let them. Take it to the voters.

I would greatly prefer that than seeing them take it to a court challenge, which seems a weaselly way to push this if they feel it's such a noble cause.

And I don't think it is a coincidence that the Liberals are suddenly gung-ho about a Kyoto implementation now that they're not the ones who'll be stuck with actually implementing the god damned thing. I suspect it is a lot easier pulling the trigger when the gun is pointed at somebody else's face and not your own.

Perhaps Harper should take a page from the Chretien/Martin playbook and promise to implement the bill, then send it to some committee and let it sit in the dark until the next election. That would probably make any legal action futile, I would suspect. "Hey, we're doing it. See? We've got top men working on it right now."

The Conservatives had the option of going to the electorate on the issue when the other three parties voted on the Kyoto bill. The could have made it a confidence motion. They didn't. It is now a bill and part of legislation. The courts were the only way to stop the Tories from shutting down the Wheat Board by order-in-council and by-passing Parliament.

If Harper believes that he can't do it, call an election on the issue. He chose once not to do it.

As for your committee suggestion, that is exactly what Harper did. He turned it over the House committee to delay any action on the bill. What the committee did was give the government 60 days to reveal how they were going to honour the legislation. The result was yesterday's response that they wouldn't.

Now, both the House and third parties can go to court to challenge the government on rejecting the legislation. Harper has a choice. He can call an election.

[Michael Bluth]

Now, both the House and third parties can go to court to challenge the government on rejecting the legislation. Harper has a choice. He can call an election.

Just like the opposition has a choice. They can work together to force an election.

[Argus]

It seems to me that it is the entire Opposition that is telling the Tories they are not doing enough and the polls that have come after the one you posted confirm that.

You're quite right. The entire opposition sees attacking the government on Kyoto as a vote-getter. It allows them to act pious and pompous and pretend a love for the environment, and a weak national press never asks them why they have no plans of their own, and why none of them have articulated anything with detailed cost figures or regulations: what industries would have to meet what kind of guidelines or what moneys would be spent or anything else.

Sheer, rank hypocrisy and the kind of two-faced weaselly political slime we have unfortunately come to expect from national politicians - all pursueing their own advancement without a thought or care for the interests of the country. The opposition in Canada have reduced themselves to the level of travelling medicine men rolling along in their wagons with "Medicine" bottles full of vinegar and sugar water greasily searching out the next group of rubes to work their spiel on.

[jdobbin]

You're quite right. The entire opposition sees attacking the government on Kyoto as a vote-getter. It allows them to act pious and pompous and pretend a love for the environment, and a weak national press never asks them why they have no plans of their own, and why none of them have articulated anything with detailed cost figures or regulations: what industries would have to meet what kind of guidelines or what moneys would be spent or anything else.

Sheer, rank hypocrisy and the kind of two-faced weaselly political slime we have unfortunately come to expect from national politicians - all pursueing their own advancement without a thought or care for the interests of the country. The opposition in Canada have reduced themselves to the level of travelling medicine men rolling along in their wagons with "Medicine" bottles full of vinegar and sugar water greasily searching out the next group of rubes to work their spiel on.

Perhaps the Opposition was able to see no evidence that there was going to be a disaster for meeting Kyoto's objectives according to the government's own notes.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...8dd&k=42696

A newly released federal analysis of the impact of Canada's international climate change obligations suggests senior government experts were at odds with Environment Minister John Baird's doom and gloom warnings that the Kyoto Protocol would provoke an economic disaster.

The four-page briefing note for the minister, a clause-by-clause analysis of legislation introduced by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, said that the Kyoto Implementation Act would be a "major challenge" that could also force massive federal investments overseas. But it said nothing to support Baird's warnings that the law could lead to massive job losses, rising energy prices and a recession.

"For Canada to meet these obligations, we would need to make massive investments in international emission credits and permits, which would undermine our ability to invest in improving our domestic environment and cleaning up our domestic industry, transportation system, etc.," reads the note, obtained by ClimateforChange.ca through an Access to Information request.

Moreover, Conservative attempts at being green were wrong headed and inefficient and more about their buying votes in ridings where they need to win.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ory/Environment

"We're scratching our heads as to why the minister chose the more expensive, inefficient option," Mr. Sadik said. "It gives the impression that the government is still introducing programs that are more about show than actually solving the climate-change problem."

A spokesperson for Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said the incentives were designed with the understanding that a small car simply isn't practical for some people.

"There are different criteria for cars and trucks since consumers have different needs," Natalie Sarafian said..

Environmentalists such as Mr. Sadik were quick to criticize the fact that two cars made next to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Whitby-Oshawa riding - the Chevy Impala and the Monte Carlo - qualified for rebates even though their fuel consumption was more than twice that of other cars on the list, such as the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid.

The government's rationale was that the two GM cars could run on E85, a fuel that contains up to 85-per-cent ethanol. However, it is virtually impossible to find a gas station that sells E85.

Edited August 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[noahbody]

Perhaps the Opposition was able to see no evidence that there was going to be a disaster for meeting Kyoto's objectives according to the government's own notes.

Perhaps, I guess it depends on your definition of disaster. The known damage is that it will take an estimated $10B- $20 billion out of Canada to meet an objective; not solve a problem or make any difference to the environment. Maybe idiotic is a better term. As far as Baird's claim about layoffs goes, it is a reasonable assumption. It will be an opportunity for corporations to cut their labour forces without looking like the bad guy in order to maintain or increase shareholder profits.

With NASA correcting it's data in the last month, wouldn't you agree that the entire reason behind Kyoto is suspect? The most reasonable approach at this time would seem to be the original Clean Air Act, that put less urgency on CO2.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps, I guess it depends on your definition of disaster. The known damage is that it will take an estimated $10B- $20 billion out of Canada to meet an objective; not solve a problem or make any difference to the environment. Maybe idiotic is a better term. As far as Baird's claim about layoffs goes, it is a reasonable assumption. It will be an opportunity for corporations to cut their labour forces without looking like the bad guy in order to maintain or increase shareholder profits.

With NASA correcting it's data in the last month, wouldn't you agree that the entire reason behind Kyoto is suspect? The most reasonable approach at this time would seem to be the original Clean Air Act, that put less urgency on CO2.

Baird's own people were disagreeing with him. He was the one saying it was a disaster. They were the ones saying it wouldn't be.

As far as NASA's error, it gives ammunition to global warming critics but it doesn't put the reason behind Kyoto in doubt. The critics will have to present a lot more science backing their position up to convince people of their argument.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

[Argus]

Baird's own people were disagreeing with him. He was the one saying it was a disaster. They were the ones saying it wouldn't be.

As far as NASA's error, it gives ammunition to global warming critics but it doesn't put the reason behind Kyoto in doubt. The critics will have to present a lot more science backing their position up to convince people of their argument.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

No one, including the most zealous of scientists, has yet been able to show, with any degree of credibility, that global warming has anything to do with carbon emissions. Sorry, but that's the truth. The environment was warmer in the middle ages than it is now and I doubt that was because of carbon emissions.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Argus

[noahbody]

Baird's own people were disagreeing with him. He was the one saying it was a disaster. They were the ones saying it wouldn't be.

As far as NASA's error, it gives ammunition to global warming critics but it doesn't put the reason behind Kyoto in doubt. The critics will have to present a lot more science backing their position up to convince people of their argument.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf

I don't believe Baird can accurately put a number on job losses, that's too hard to predict. But to think corporations will put employee interests ahead of shareholder interests is naive.

The facts that 7 of the 15 hottest years occurred before industrialization and that the top 15 years occurred over 7 decades pretty much kills the manmade CO2 argument. That case was build on circumstancial evidence - evidence that has been proven to be false. The glove didn't fit.

As far as Kyoto goes, the only problem it would solve is that it would give Canada a true identity. A nation of fools.

[jdobbin]

No one, including the most zealous of scientists, has yet been able to show, with any degree of credibility, that global warming has anything to do with carbon emissions. Sorry, but that's the truth. The environment was warmer in the middle ages than it is now and I doubt that was because of carbon emissions.

If the Tories want to make the argument that there is no global warming or that it has not been accelerated by emissions, they are free to make their case in an election. However, they cannot ignore legislation passed by Parliament. This has been proven by the federal court knocking them back on changes they wished to make to the Wheat Board that bypassed Parliament.

The Opposition already has the legislation they want. They have no need to go to the polls. They simply have to go the court where the government will be ordered to comply.

Edited August 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I don't believe Baird can accurately put a number on job losses, that's too hard to predict. But to think corporations will put employee interests ahead of shareholder interests is naive.

The facts that 7 of the 15 hottest years occurred before industrialization and that the top 15 years occurred over 7 decades pretty much kills the manmade CO2 argument. That case was build on circumstancial evidence - evidence that has been proven to be false. The glove didn't fit.

As far as Kyoto goes, the only problem it would solve is that it would give Canada a true identity. A nation of fools.

Baird's own people disagreed with him on the doomsday outcome he was putting forward.

If the Tories don't believe in Kyoto, go the polls. The Opposition has the legislation it wants. It doesn't need to go the polls on this when the court will back them up on whether Harper can ignore Parliamentary legislation.