Government Rejects Kyoto Bill

[Michael Bluth]

I don't believe the Tories really even believe in global warming so I find their recent jump on the bandwagon unconvincing. If anyone should be unhappy with the Conservatives, it should be you since you have said you doubt global warming exists.

Can you explain the contradiction?

If you don't think the Tories believe in global warming, why should Argus have an issue with them. That is if you are trying to remain logically consistent.

[jdobbin]

The problem with that is that despite being overwhelmingly ignorant about almost every aspect of Kyoto, its costs, goals and complexities, most Canadians fully support it. The Liberals, NDP and BQ know this and are playing it for all it's worth. In an election, you can expect the opposition to harp on Kyoto as a motherhood issue, as saving the environment, expect them to downplay any costs, and to speak in vague terms about how Kyoto could be met or what they would do to meet Kyoto. Nor would you see any member of the national press gallery confronting any of them, particularly Dion, and asking for specifics - or, for that matter, why, if Kyoto was so important, the previous Liberal government completely ignored it, and why its present leader spoke out against it as a job killer when in cabinet.

It doesn't help that the Tories have a leader who rejected Kyoto in the last election. If there is a reason why Canadians don't know about what Kyoto will cost, it is because Harper's government only gives a doomsday scenario that his own department disagreed with.

Let him go to an election. If he can articulate why his policy is superior, he will win. If he can't, he has only himself to blame.

[Michael Bluth]

Let him go to an election. If he can articulate why his policy is superior, he will win. If he can't, he has only himself to blame.

That's what he did in 2006. That's why he won. He has the power now. If the Liberals want to force an election they can deal with the NDP and Bloq to force on. Let the people decide, not the courts!

[noahbody]

I don't believe the Tories really even believe in global warming so I find their recent jump on the bandwagon unconvincing.

What the Tories have demonstrated is that they believe in being responsible. Have they ever been fully on the bandwagon? No. Their polically correct answer is that they support Kyoto in principle. Have they ever been in support of giving countries $10-20 Billion for little or no reason? No.

A good defence strategy in court would be to say that Chretien was insane when he signed it. When they asked for proof, the govt lawyers could say a proof is a proof is a proof...

[jdobbin]

What the Tories have demonstrated is that they believe in being responsible. Have they ever been fully on the bandwagon? No. Their polically correct answer is that they support Kyoto in principle. Have they ever been in support of giving countries $10-20 Billion for little or no reason? No.

A good defence strategy in court would be to say that Chretien was insane when he signed it. When they asked for proof, the govt lawyers could say a proof is a proof is a proof...

Very clever. This will go to court because it is now the law. And the federal court has been quite clear that the government cannot choose to ignore legislation just because it doesn't like it.

[Michael Bluth]

Very clever. This will go to court because it is now the law. And the federal court has been quite clear that the government cannot choose to ignore legislation just because it doesn't like it.

They aren't ignoring it.

Even you admitted that.

They just aren't implementing it in a way you agree with. Nothing illegal about that.

[Argus]

I don't believe the Tories really even believe in global warming so I find their recent jump on the bandwagon unconvincing. If anyone should be unhappy with the Conservatives, it should be you since you have said you doubt global warming exists.

I am dubious about the doomsday scenarios they bandy about, especially when Baird's own people disagreed with them.

I was never happy about the Liberal policy on Kyoto as it started late, was unfocused and lacked real targets. Having said that though, the Conservative policy on Kyoto going into the election was to reject it. And now their legislation is about to be prorogued in Parliament because they really don't believe in it.

Global Warming is a reality. What causes it is what is up for debate. There seems little disagreement, however, that Kyoto will do nothing to reverse or even ease climate change.

[Argus]

It doesn't help that the Tories have a leader who rejected Kyoto in the last election. If there is a reason why Canadians don't know about what Kyoto will cost, it is because Harper's government only gives a doomsday scenario that his own department disagreed with.

And your party has given no numbers because despite signing the thing so many years ago it still has no actual plan.

Let him go to an election. If he can articulate why his policy is superior, he will win. If he can't, he has only himself to blame.

In a world of smart people that would work. Unfortunately, most Canadians are idiots. The press has adopted global warming as a kind of cause celebre, and every environmental wacko will be front and centre, featured in every newspaper, magazine and talk show denouncing the Tories as worse than Hitler for not spending at least one hundred billion a year on easing Global warming.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Argus

[jdobbin]

Global Warming is a reality. What causes it is what is up for debate. There seems little disagreement, however, that Kyoto will do nothing to reverse or even ease climate change.

There are quite a few Conservatives who seem unconvinced that there is global warming at all even if you say it is a reality.

Stockwell Day had to be ordered by his own government to remove global warming doubts from his website last year.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...fa0&k=45407

The Tory policy on the environment has been found wanting in numerous polls. Harper can blame the Liberals all he wants but people are now judging his record over the last two years.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/22/...nment-poll.html

A new poll suggests most Canadians believe climate change is a reality, but people in various regions hold widely different attitudes — with Albertans expressing the most skepticism.

The survey conducted by Angus Reid Strategies released Thursday found that almost four in five Canadians — 77 per cent — are convinced global warming is real.

"This is the biggest study that has been done on Canadians and their opinions and attitudes towards global warming," Angus Reid poll researcher Ellie Sykes told CBC News Thursday

I suspect the environment will play a role in future polls as well in terms of people's support for the Conservatives.

Edited August 25, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

And your party has given no numbers because despite signing the thing so many years ago it still has no actual plan.

In a world of smart people that would work. Unfortunately, most Canadians are idiots. The press has adopted global warming as a kind of cause celebre, and every environmental wacko will be front and centre, featured in every newspaper, magazine and talk show denouncing the Tories as worse than Hitler for not spending at least one hundred billion a year on easing Global warming.

And your party have given out no numbers on its doomsday scenario that stand the test of even Baird's own department.

[Argus]

And your party have given out no numbers on its doomsday scenario that stand the test of even Baird's own department.

That really shouldn't upset you given you say they don't really believe in Global Warming anyway.

What SHOULD upset you, if you actually cared about global warming, was the fact your party, despite its massive self-righteousness, despite virtually making it the central issue on which to stand against the Tories, has not bothered to develop any policies, any guidelines, any ideas, has put forth nothing whatsoever on controlling emissions in fifteen years. Again and again your party harps on global warming, insisting we meet our Kyoto goals, yet refusing to say how - not to mention why, if it was so important, you did NOTHING when you were in power.

It is the massive dishonesty and sleazy, slimy, self-serving political hucksterism that gets me about the Liberals.

[jdobbin]

That really shouldn't upset you given you say they don't really believe in Global Warming anyway.

What SHOULD upset you, if you actually cared about global warming, was the fact your party, despite its massive self-righteousness, despite virtually making it the central issue on which to stand against the Tories, has not bothered to develop any policies, any guidelines, any ideas, has put forth nothing whatsoever on controlling emissions in fifteen years. Again and again your party harps on global warming, insisting we meet our Kyoto goals, yet refusing to say how - not to mention why, if it was so important, you did NOTHING when you were in power.

It is the massive dishonesty and sleazy, slimy, self-serving political hucksterism that gets me about the Liberals.

I've never made any bones that the Liberal policy was too little, too late. It doesn't mean I think the Tory policy is an improvement or that they deserve to be in power.

[Argus]

I've never made any bones that the Liberal policy was too little, too late. It doesn't mean I think the Tory policy is an improvement or that they deserve to be in power.

Was? Was!? It has not changed! There is no policy! There are no guidelines! Your party's policy on the environment consists of photo-ops to reel in the green vote, and that's it. In the event they win it will all be shoved into a back closet to be trotted out and dusted off for the next election along with your crocodile tears about health care and day care.

So just what standard do the tories have to live up to on the environment in order to be in power - as opposed to the Liberals?

Edited August 26, 2007 by Argus

[jdobbin]

So just what standard do the tories have to live up to on the environment in order to be in power - as opposed to the Liberals?

If the environment was the only issue, I wouldn't have voted for the Liberals.

[Michael Bluth]

What SHOULD upset you, if you actually cared about global warming, was the fact your party, despite its massive self-righteousness, despite virtually making it the central issue on which to stand against the Tories, has not bothered to develop any policies, any guidelines, any ideas, has put forth nothing whatsoever on controlling emissions in fifteen years. Again and again your party harps on global warming, insisting we meet our Kyoto goals, yet refusing to say how - not to mention why, if it was so important, you did NOTHING when you were in power.

It is the massive dishonesty and sleazy, slimy, self-serving political hucksterism that gets me about the Liberals.

All the Liberals have done recently is have Stephane Dion spout that Canada can get rich while getting green.

How? Meh, wait til they elect him then he'll show how.

The major engine driving growth in Canada right now is the oil sands. How is Canada going to get green without hurting this important sector to our economy? Not too sure on that one. But I guarantee that Dion et al don't have an answer either.

[Argus]

If the environment was the only issue, I wouldn't have voted for the Liberals.

Perhaps, then, you could enlighten us on what issue you feel the Liberals are strong in.

[old_bold&cold]

The liberals are very good at using their power to get businesses thta want to do any deals with the government, to follow the hoops where the liberal party then gets kickbacks. Also they will push to have things done that are in their own favour and in the ridings that voted liberal. They have a very much vote for me or be unseen by us when we are in power attitude.

Dion has not given any cogent thought to what he would do if he were in power other then to say they would be different. How would he divide up the transfer payments and on what basis would he use to do so? What would he do about gun crime? And how would he enforce that? What would he say to NATO, if and when the time is up for the Afghanistan mission and no one is there to take the place? What would then liberals do to show our soviergnty in the north and how will he handle the fact that the liberals let all the naval ships and coast guard icebreakers go and now they will be badly needed to restore our claim to the largest area of natural resources on the planet. If any thing that the CP's have proven is that our armed forces need a complete overhaul with new and modern equipment, and that is not something you can let go. But the past Liberals were the ones who depleted the forces so badly that they could bearly muster domestic missions and a few peace keeping duties. Will the Liberal go back to their old ways?

The Liberals can yap all they want while in opposition but they will have to have a platform to run on and that will not be of their chosing as today the voters will call for the answers to their questions. I do not see Dion as a quick on his feet type that can give answers without it showing that he is making things up.

So yes I do not see the Liberals as being able to give a strong showing with Dion as leader.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps, then, you could enlighten us on what issue you feel the Liberals are strong in.

Defending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, better tax reductions than the GST cut, a good decision on not getting involved in Iraq, better deficit control than any other industrialized country, support for the Canadian What Board, support for the arts, better policy on First Nations and better policies on national unity as specified in the Clarity Act.

The Tories act differently in almost all these areas.

[Keepitsimple]

The Globe and Mail, of all sources, printed an Editorial today that put Canada's Kyoto targets in perspective and condemned Stephane Dion's position on the matter. As usual, you have to pay for the complete article but here is their lead-in followed by a few quotes - there is plenty of additional information in the Editorial that supports their opinion but I guess you'll have to buy today's G & M:

The Tory report beats Dion's bill

With virtually no public announcement, the federal Conservative government has outlined why Canada will not meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. In a report last week, Ottawa estimated that the required cuts in domestic emissions would devastate the economy, and explained why it won't purchase foreign emissions credits. It's a lucid summary of Canada's plight as an energy exporting nation with a growing economy and an increasing population.

And, with sad predictability, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has criticized it, maintaining that the Conservatives should put the opposition parties' tough redraft of the Clean Air and Climate Change Act to a final vote in the House of Commons. "This legislation must pass," Mr. Dion warned in a seven page letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He added darkly that if the government ends this session of Parliament in the fall, Mr. Harper should bring the bill back for implementation; otherwise, he cannot count on Liberal support for a Throne Speech. The Tory minority government could fall.

After presenting the facts and figures, here's the summary

Do the arithmetic. Aiming for Kyoto now would be a nightmare.

And to close the opinion piece.....here's the final word:

No one should forget that emissions rose steadily under the former Liberal government, year after year, despite its Kyoto vows. Canada cannot meet its targets now. Mr. Dion should allow the clean air bill to lapse.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

Defending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, better tax reductions than the GST cut, a good decision on not getting involved in Iraq, better deficit control than any other industrialized country, support for the Canadian What Board, support for the arts, better policy on First Nations and better policies on national unity as specified in the Clarity Act.

The Tories act differently in almost all these areas.

You've identified two very important areas - First Nations and National Unity - and you've hit the nail on the head - the Tories act differently in these areas.

First Nations: Year after year, decade after decade, governments of both stripe have thrown money at First Nations - with little to show for it. There's been a lot of noise about the so-called Kelowna Accord. It's always portrayed as a $5 billion deal but it's over 10 years!. The money was not budgeted, nor was there any definitive plan for how the money would be targeted and distributed over the 10 year period. But again - it was more money. Nothing fundamental was changing - no accountability for the money, no recognition of off-reserve people, no human rights/Charter initiatives, no land claims restructuring. Nothing - just more money. And yes, now the Tories are doing things differently in all those areas.

National Unity: Jean Chretien and his paternal approach to the provinces had Quebec heading for separation, Alberta and BC starting to talk about the same thing, Danny Williams saying that Newfoundland would be better off on their own (yes, even back then). All the provinces were ticked off with the Federal Government hoarding supluses and making spending announcements that intruded on Provincial juristiction. Ontario was livid with McGuinty saying that the Feds owed them $22 billion a year. Although there will always be quibbling with the Provinces and the Feds, the Tories have rendored the separatists in Quebec almost irrelevant, Alberta and BC are back in the fold, and even Ontario has quieted down. Danny Boy of course, is still at it. So yes, the Tories are doing things differently - is it working - on balance, it looks like it is - is it still up for debate - sure it is but it's a healthy debate and I see no signs of Canada coming apart at the seams. And by the way, Stephen Harper was the first to table a Clarity approach - essentially the framework for the existing Clarity Act. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

This act was spawned by the 1995 Quebec referendum and ongoing independence movement in that province. In 1996, the initial attempt to pass a similar bill by then Reform MP Stephen Harper did not pass first reading. Known as Bill C-341, or the Quebec Contingency Act, it served as a model for the subsequent Clarity Act passed in 2000.[1]

Edited August 27, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

You've identified two very important areas - First Nations and National Unity - and you've hit the nail on the head - the Tories act differently in these areas.

First Nations: Year after year, decade after decade, governments of both stripe have thrown money at First Nations - with little to show for it. There's been a lot of noise about the so-called Kelowna Accord. It's always portrayed as a $5 billion deal but it's over 10 years!. The money was not budgeted, nor was there any definitive plan for how the money would be targeted and distributed over the 10 year period. But again - it was more money. Nothing fundamental was changing - no accountability for the money, no recognition of off-reserve people, no human rights/Charter initiatives, no land claims restructuring. Nothing - just more money. And yes, now the Tories are doing things differently in all those areas.

National Unity: Jean Chretien and his paternal approach to the provinces had Quebec heading for separation, Alberta and BC starting to talk about the same thing, Danny Williams saying that Newfoundland would be better off on their own (yes, even back then). All the provinces were ticked off with the Federal Government hoarding supluses and making spending announcements that intruded on Provincial juristiction. Ontario was livid with McGuinty saying that the Feds owed them $22 billion a year. Although there will always be quibbling with the Provinces and the Feds, the Tories have rendored the separatists in Quebec almost irrelevant, Alberta and BC are back in the fold, and even Ontario has quieted down. Danny Boy of course, is still at it. So yes, the Tories are doing things differently - is it working - on balance, it looks like it is - is it still up for debate - sure it is but it's a healthy debate and I see no signs of Canada coming apart at the seams. And by the way, Stephen Harper was the first to table a Clarity approach - essentially the framework for the existing Clarity Act. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

I'm glad someone can see the difference and if the present policies in these areas are to your liking, then you are with the right party.

I disagree though and while there might be some things that I support the present government on such as expanding the Northern Rangers or the northern Quebec land and governance agreement, I disagree on Kelowna and their ideas of dismantling aspects of the federal government.

[jdobbin]

The Globe and Mail, of all sources, printed an Editorial today that put Canada's Kyoto targets in perspective and condemned Stephane Dion's position on the matter. As usual, you have to pay for the complete article but here is their lead-in followed by a few quotes - there is plenty of additional information in the Editorial that supports their opinion but I guess you'll have to buy

I think the editorial you are looking for is here:

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/s...ironment/4/4/5/

So where does this leave Canada? In his letter, Mr. Dion appears to concede that Canada will not meet its Kyoto targets now, but he insists that the opposition parties' revised clean air bill is a more credible plan than the government's regulatory framework to tackle industrial emissions. Coupled with provincial programs, that Tory plan, while far from perfect, would result in absolute emission cuts by 2012. The revised clean air bill, in contrast, is simply too bureaucratic and unwieldy.

I disagree with the last sentence.