Conservative Environment Program

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0921?hub=Canada

Stephen Harper's climate-change plan was shredded by his own government's environment watchdog just as the prime minister prepared to trumpet it at a United Nations conference next week.

An Environment Canada body gave a passing grade to zero of nine programs in the Conservative climate-change plan and accused the government of exaggerating its potential impact.

The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy also accused the government of using misleading methods to arrive at false conclusions, such as double-accounting.

The report comes at a less-than-ideal moment for the prime minister, who heads to New York on Monday to deliver a speech before 80 world leaders about his approach to climate change.

The report accuses his government of "systematic" exaggeration, "double-accounting," "not accurately reflecting" emissions reductions, "important inconsistency," and "overestimated" reductions.

It concluded that of nine federal climate-change programs, the government had exaggerated the benefits of three and failed to produce sufficient information to support the other six.

However, the Tories claimed a silver lining.

They noted that the 38-page report also concludes that the government plan will, over time, result in significant emissions reductions. The Tories say greenhouse gas emissions will stop increasing by 2010 under their plan and will actually drop 20 per cent by 2020.

"What's clear through this exercise is our government appears to be on the right track," said Garry Keller, a spokesman for Environment Minister John Baird.

The government issued the report late Friday afternoon - the time of week governments typically release information they hope to see ignored.

It seems that the only good news is that eventually the program may produce emissions reductions. However, the vague, exaggerated and overestimated regulations and numbers is no way to run a program. It could lead to outright failure because it suggests there is no proper way to assess the program given the poor accounting of its benefits.

[Argus]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0921?hub=Canada

It seems that the only good news is that eventually the program may produce emissions reductions. However, the vague, exaggerated and overestimated regulations and numbers is no way to run a program. It could lead to outright failure because it suggests there is no proper way to assess the program given the poor accounting of its benefits.

Actually it said "will" not "may". And "eventually" is the only way you can possibly reduce emissions by any substantial amount.

BTW, did this commission ever criticize the Liberals for their non-action on climate change?

What IS the Liberal plan on the environment? About time you guys came up with one, eh?

[jdobbin]

Actually it said "will" not "may". And "eventually" is the only way you can possibly reduce emissions by any substantial amount.

BTW, did this commission ever criticize the Liberals for their non-action on climate change?

What IS the Liberal plan on the environment? About time you guys came up with one, eh?

Since this commission was appointed by Harper for the express purpose of looking at the new Tory environment plan, no they didn't look at the former Liberal plan.

I believe the Liberal plan presently is C-288.

And I said "may" because when you run a program with that much vague accounting, it often doesn't achieve what you think it will.

[Shakeyhands]

Actually it said "will" not "may". And "eventually" is the only way you can possibly reduce emissions by any substantial amount.

BTW, did this commission ever criticize the Liberals for their non-action on climate change?

What IS the Liberal plan on the environment? About time you guys came up with one, eh?

The onus is on the CPC right now Argus. They, unfortunately for the majority of Canadians, form the government right now. But you know their plan is worthless and this is the reason for the constant deflection.

[Keepitsimple]

The news report and a similar one that I read in the Star this morning, was confusing and mis-leading. The last half of the article puts things in a little better perspective - and at least explains why this report was produced.

The opposition bill -- C-288 -- also requires the national roundtable to advise the government on the effectiveness of its climate-change plan, which is what prompted the report.

In short, Bill C-288 calls on the government to put a plan in place to meet Kyoto targets - that means reducing our greenhouse gases by at least 30% starting in 2008 and attaining at least that average by 2012. Well DUH, we all know that can't be done - so of course the Conservative plan is inadequate in that respect - which puts back into the same views that have been so clearly evident - blindly pay homage to a flawed Kyoto Plan which long ago passed its "best before" date - or come up with a plan that balances economic growth with a meaningful plan for emission reductions. So this quote from the article should carry some weight:

They noted that the 38-page report also concludes that the government plan will, over time, result in significant emissions reductions. The Tories say greenhouse gas emissions will stop increasing by 2010 under their plan and will actually drop 20 per cent by 2020.

I'm afraid we are all doomed to continue this polarized debate for many years to come......but it should be obvious to even the most fervent supporters - Kyoto Phase One is dead.

[old_bold&cold]

Maybe you can tell me just what is the right method to acces the real numbers in reducing short term emmissions? You can not because there is no such thing. You can only give numbers over very long term and even then it does not seem any formula will suit all. So when this committee says that the numbers are wrong, how and by what method are they getting this, because scientists would really love to have such an accurate method. The fact that it said the long term numbers will be down, then that is very good, compared to them going up and up under the Liberal plan. Since this is a plan that has goals set 40+ years down the road, any movement toward that goal means it is on the right track.

This over view may want to pick at the minusia in what is a best guess type environment, and then claim it is not exactly accurate. But what is going to be accurate when we are not even sure of the science and the methods. We can only rely on the long term effects and hope we have used the right formulas. Hell one volcano eruption and all these numbers could be shot to hell. Sun flares could knock all the data off as well. Ocean current changes and even the gases from wild animals can change everything quickly and profoundly. So this overview committee, will have to excuse me when I hold my nose, at the BS they are really saying

[Argus]

Since this commission was appointed by Harper for the express purpose of looking at the new Tory environment plan, no they didn't look at the former Liberal plan.

I believe the Liberal plan presently is C-288.

And I said "may" because when you run a program with that much vague accounting, it often doesn't achieve what you think it will.

hey noted that the 38-page report also concludes that the government plan will, over time, result in significant emissions reductions.

If you're going to cite something then don't try and change the parts that you don't like.

As to C-288, that is not a plan of any sort. It is a kind of ideological manifesto demanding the government do the impossible - with no mention of cost. So what you are saying, in effect, is that almost fifteen years after signing Kyoto the Liberal party still has NO plan whatsoever on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is why so many of us consider Liberals to be nothing by weaselly lying hypocrites. You posture and you thump tables and you make demands but when you are actually in power you do nothing. It's the same with health care. All those elections of the Liberals portraying themselves as the great defenders and advocates of public health care yet you did absolutely nothing to protect it - even cut health care funding - while it deteriorated.

If Dion actually gave a damn about greenhouse gas emissions he'd have already told us what his own plan was. He hasn't, because he hasn't got one, because the only use he has for Kyoto is as an election tool.

[Argus]

The onus is on the CPC right now Argus. They, unfortunately for the majority of Canadians, form the government right now. But you know their plan is worthless and this is the reason for the constant deflection.

Actually, the onus is on the opposition to show they can do better. The opposition has failed to do that. Whatever the deficiencies of the Conservative plan, at least they have one. There is nothing coming from the opposition but hot air and self righteousness.

And frankly, every time some braying ass tells me we must meet our Kyoto goals I wonder whether he lacks intelligence or whether he's deliberately insulting mine.

In neither event will I vote for them.

[jdobbin]

If you're going to cite something then don't try and change the parts that you don't like.

As to C-288, that is not a plan of any sort. It is a kind of ideological manifesto demanding the government do the impossible - with no mention of cost. So what you are saying, in effect, is that almost fifteen years after signing Kyoto the Liberal party still has NO plan whatsoever on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is why so many of us consider Liberals to be nothing by weaselly lying hypocrites. You posture and you thump tables and you make demands but when you are actually in power you do nothing. It's the same with health care. All those elections of the Liberals portraying themselves as the great defenders and advocates of public health care yet you did absolutely nothing to protect it - even cut health care funding - while it deteriorated.

If Dion actually gave a damn about greenhouse gas emissions he'd have already told us what his own plan was. He hasn't, because he hasn't got one, because the only use he has for Kyoto is as an election tool.

You must have skipped over the part where I cited that very sentence you outlined. It is not changed in any way, shape or form. It is quoted directly from the article. I cited the article quite properly. I gave the link and highlighted the report's points including the one about reduced emissions.

What followed was my opinion. I said "may reduce emissions"' because the "over time" wording on the report is a vague as the government program that the report criticized. You are free to criticize my opinion but my cite is correct.

You asked what the Liberal policy is now, I gave it to you.

As for the rest of your anti-Liberal harangue, it is your opinion. The Conservatives are now in government and the focus is now on their own plan. There are enough criticisms from their own chosen panel to question whether the program will ever be successful.

[jdobbin]

Actually, the onus is on the opposition to show they can do better. The opposition has failed to do that. Whatever the deficiencies of the Conservative plan, at least they have one. There is nothing coming from the opposition but hot air and self righteousness.

The government plan has a long list of failings according to its own panel.

The onus of the Opposition is to come up with something better is left to elections. When they are Parliament, their responsibility is to oppose the government, critique policy and make improvements in legislation in committee.

Edited September 23, 2007 by jdobbin

[ScottSA]

The government plan has a long list of failings according to its own panel.

The onus of the Opposition to come up with something better is left to elections. When they are Parliament, their responsibility is to oppose the government, critique policy and make improvements in legislation is committee.

That's just not true. Unfortunately that's what it's become, but the Conservatives won the last election precisely because they had a plan, and outlined their plan long before the election was called. For decades the Libs have simply approached elections as a dog and pony show, where all they have to do is dust of some old promises, inflate a few new ones, and holler "wooo scary rightwing." Then after the election they just went back to cruise control, confident in the notion that they were the ONE TRVE Party.

There's something called "portfolio drift" in financial management. It's when an asset class either sinks or shoots ahead of the others, causing an imbalance and incremental drift away from it's original mandated parameters. I believe the Liberals displayed this same trait over time since 1993...they drifted out of line with the Canadian demos, each election becoming more arrogant than the last, and each time becoming further out of touch with the electorate. With Dion at the head they are almost in lalaland...this Kyoto nonsense is evidence of that even if nothing else is. And much else is, to be sure.

[jdobbin]

That's just not true. Unfortunately that's what it's become, but the Conservatives won the last election precisely because they had a plan, and outlined their plan long before the election was called. For decades the Libs have simply approached elections as a dog and pony show, where all they have to do is dust of some old promises, inflate a few new ones, and holler "wooo scary rightwing." Then after the election they just went back to cruise control, confident in the notion that they were the ONE TRVE Party.

Unfortunately for the Tory plan, it didn't include greenhouse gases. They are late converts to the idea and their legislation has a long list of criticisms from their own expert panel.

Cruise control is what the Tories have been on since spring when they ran out of priorities and hoped to go into an election.