Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:

Archives

Harper’s use of an environmental red herring to try and fool Canadians.

The Toronto Star’s editorial board has been spot on lately with taking Harper to task on the Environment, and they do so again, by pointing out in this editorial how Harper still wants nothing to do with Kyoto and doesnt even want to attempt to meet Canada’s goals, and points to this interesting bit of reasoning Harper tries to use:

Harper said dismissively: “We can’t tell the Canadian population to heat its homes one-third less of the time.”

The Star though, immediately points out the red herring for what that statement is, and why Harper is reluctant to do anything – any concrete steps would affect all the oil companies in his backyard:

But Harper sidestepped the real issue underlying climate change in Canada: Where households contribute about 25 per cent of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, industry is responsible for 75 per cent.
Confronting global warming must mean imposing immediate, hard and fast caps across-the-board on industrial emissions. Such caps must be below the volume of emissions generated last year or the year before. In Harper’s backyard, the caps must mean real reductions from Alberta oil-sands plants, the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases in Canada.

Harper doesnt want to get his “base” mad at him, so the reason for his foot-dragging on this besides his ideological stance is obvious. In the meantime, he will try to make statements wherever he can to try and ridicule Kyoto and convince Canadians it isnt feasible to meet the targets.

But as the Star says, we need to at least try:

If Harper really wants to persuade Canadians that he has taken their message on global warming to heart, he will recommit Canada to the ongoing Kyoto process, and find a way to meet our initial target as fast as is realistically possible, even if it means several years behind schedule. Because global warming is going to be a long-term challenge, meaning ever larger initiatives will be needed down the road, the time to start is now.

It may not be feasible to slash our emissions enough to reach our Kyoto target over the next five years. But that’s no excuse for Harper not to try.

Amen to that.

Share

17 comments to Harper’s use of an environmental red herring to try and fool Canadians.

  • burlivespipe

    when is greed for greed sense stupid and not even economically smart? when it’s zapping the elements necessary for economic sustainability. But try this logic on for size – oil is a finite resource. By demanding that the oil companies invest in research and development of safer, more environmentally responsible technology, thus possibly slowing the process of production, they will then extend the life of their resource by decades. Long after the oil dries up in the desert of kuwait. By then the resource will be even more limited, thus raising the price of oil and correspondingly, the profits. So Dion’s ideas on making a sustainable plan on tar sands development should actually make the quality of life even better for Canadians (especially albertans) while also be a longer-term dividend check for share holders of the resource. Doesn’t that make sense?

  • “Just punt Alberta out of Confederation. That’ll reduce Canada’s emissions considerably, ”

    Sadly they’d still be ON EARTH, where the pollution problem remains 😉

  • lrC

    Keep adding to the list. Also take note of whether the expenditures are even within 4 or 5 orders of magnitude of the costs of dealing with C02 emissions.

  • Meeting the Kyoto 2012 targets in 2050 is the same as not meeting them at all. By then, there will be so much CO2 in the atmosphere that reductions in emissions will take far too long to prevent the more serious problems we are trying to avoid.

    This isn’t about meeting targets, people. It’s about preventing serious climate change problems caused by global warming.

  • Locusta emersonia

    LrC said: “What idiot wrote the editorial? That’s exactly the reason not to try. We don’t piss finite resources (federal revenues) away on poor prospects, bad returns, and unachievable goals.”
    So, Harper and his government are not pissing away finite federal revenues on:
    – the disgraced head of the RCMP flying 17 times on RCMP jets for non-emergency trips?
    – spending Canadian taxpayer’s money paying Afghanistan’s police force, supposedly in a bid to stem the tide of corruption (as if that makes any sense at all)?
    – spending unreported amounts on Khan’s junkets?
    – spending taxpayers dollars to have 4 MPs stand around in Vancouver while Harper re-announces an announcement?

    And that’s just what Harper allows under his purview as the head of the government of Canada.
    What amounts the Conservative party of Canada spent on focus groups to make the Green Plan II fly, or what was spent on paying Bourque for headlines is anyone’s guess.
    The goal is not unachievable. Harper’s failure to launch is the problem.

  • lrC

    >In Harper’s backyard, the caps must mean real reductions from Alberta oil-sands plants, the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases in Canada.

    Just punt Alberta out of Confederation. That’ll reduce Canada’s emissions considerably, and you’ll probably not have to worry about Conservative government again, ever, leaving much more political latitude to pursue further “green” policies.

  • lrC

    >I guess we’ll be haulin’ ass outta Afstan purty soon.

    Good idea. We can probably work up quite a list. However, at least we’re agreed on not pissing money away.

    >“Words from a poem by Robert Browning, suggesting that, to achieve anything worthwhile, a person should attempt even those things that may turn out to be impossible.”

    A person should. You reach for whatever you want, and I’ll reach for whatever I want. I don’t think Browning meant you should spend my money tilting at whatever windmills you choose.

  • “It may not be feasible to slash our emissions enough to reach our Kyoto target over the next five years. But that’s no excuse for Harper not to try.”

    What idiotic bullshit. You set targets to meet them, not to feel good about yourself before failing miserably to meet them.

  • Jay

    For an example of billg’s musings, please check out mises.org and peakoil.com. Especially check out his Noah’s Ark plan for cities! Its in the comments sections. Actually google “billg climate change” and you will see what I am talking about.

  • Jay

    for an exapmle of billg’s reasonin please check out mises.org and peakoil.com. Especially check out his Noah’s Ark plan for cities!

  • Whooee! BillyBoy, I call my wifemate “Ma” an’ I call my dear 81 year old mother “Mum”. I know plenty o’ other fellers an’ gals in my neck o’ the woods (SW Ontariariario) who call their mums “Mum”. I know a few Merkans who say “Maw” an’ a few others who say “Mom” like it rhymes with “bomb.” I been callin’ my mama “Mum” since I learned t’ talk 56 years ago an’ I don’t figger I’ll be changin’ that any on accounta it don’t fit in with yer preconceptions.

    I ain’t sayin’ anybuddy’s s’posed t’ try makin’ gold from lead. We can make bio-diesel from almost any vegetable seeds an’ quite a few other plant parts. That’ll be good fer farmers an’ also good fer world peace if we don’t hafta get inta bed with guys like the Saudi royal family.

    I ain’t smart enuff t’ know whatcher on about with that thing ’bout me feelin’ smarter than the rest.

    JB

  • billg

    Sure why not jimbob. Why not straw into golden thread. Or water into wine…wait, someone already did that. And by the way jimbob….bein raised on d’farm ‘nall…no one ever called their maw….mum. Mum is an english term I call my mother in law from Kerry County, Irleland. Please, more of that Bobby Browning guy if it makes you feel smarter than the rest of the class.

  • Whooee! I reckon mebbe the ConMen ain’t heard ’bout how havin’ bigass goals leads t’ achievement.

    Back in the olden days in Merrie Olde Englande, there was this here poet feller. You mighta heard of ‘im — Robert Browning. Well, ol’ Bob Browning had hisself a good line that goes like this —

    “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

    When I looked up that line (which I first learnt from my ol’ Mum ’bout 50 years ago when I was ’bout 7 years old), there was an interpretation fer lazyasses an’ illiterates who can’t figger out things fer themselves. Here’s what they sed ’bout that famous line —

    “Words from a poem by Robert Browning, suggesting that, to achieve anything worthwhile, a person should attempt even those things that may turn out to be impossible.”

    Makes sense, sez I.

    JB

  • billg

    The Liberals knew Koyoto was flawed and unachievable. The Conservatives know that Koyoto is flawed and unachievable. Seems pretty simple to me. Its flawed and unachievable. Should we try?? Yes. Clean our air and our oceans as well. Make it a 50 year plan, not an all or nothing election platform.

  • Whooee! Lurc sez — “That’s exactly the reason not to try. We don’t piss finite resources (federal revenues) away on poor prospects, bad returns, and unachievable goals.”

    If Canadee’s New Gummint don’t waste “federal money” (that’s my taxes, bye-the-bye)on poor prospects, bad returns, and unachievable goals, I guess we’ll be haulin’ ass outta Afstan purty soon.

    JB

  • lrC

    >It may not be feasible to slash our emissions enough to reach our Kyoto target over the next five years. But that’s no excuse for Harper not to try.

    What idiot wrote the editorial? That’s exactly the reason not to try. We don’t piss finite resources (federal revenues) away on poor prospects, bad returns, and unachievable goals.

    We don’t have to produce oil from tar sands. We don’t have to produce electricity by burning coal, either. We can find all sorts of things to shut down.

  • Whooee! There’s sum ways that Harper an’ his bunch can convince everybuddy o’ the genuine-ness o’ their conversion.

    I posted up a boog story a few days ago ’bout these here compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFB’s). Guys like me who’s tryin’ t’ cut down on energy use replace all o’ their old incandescent bulbs with these ones. It costed be ’bout $65 t’ buy all new bulbs. That’ll be paid off in hydro bill savin’s in ’bout 6 months. Already, I’m usin’ less energy an’ helpin’ cut down on’ juice comin’ outta Nanticoke.

    If every incandescent bulb in North Merka was replaced with one o’ these CFB’s, they say the Merkans wouldn’t hafta import a drop o’ Middle East oil.

    If the gummint’s serious, they need t’ show it.

    Have they replaced all o’ the bulbs at 24 Sussex, Parliament Hill an’ all gummint buildings across Canadee?

    Are they replacing the fleet o’ gas-guzzlin’ gummint limos with hybrids?

    Is the Canajun Forces doin’ what the Merkan Forces is doin’ an’ convertin’ their base vehicles t’ run on bio-diesel?

    Is the gummint requirin’ compostin’ an’ recyclin’ programs at all gummint facilities?

    Are ministers an’ delegates makin’ use o’ technology so’s they can have virtual webcam face-t’-face meetin’s instead o’ wastin’ time money an’ fossil fuel by flyin’ everywhere there’s a photo op?

    When gummint muckety-mucks hafta fly somewheres, are they flyin’ on commercial flights with hunnerts o’ other passengers or are they gettin’ private jet service?

    Are gummint buildin’s turnin’ down the thermostat an’ tellin’ the gummint workers t’ wear sweaters?

    Do gummint buildin’s burn the lights all night long when nobuddy’s workin’?

    Do MP’s ride public transit?

    These is all the sortsa things people look after when they’re concerned ’bout the impact they’re havin’ on ol’ Mother Earth. You can bet that Lizzie May an’ most o’ the Green Party fellers an’ gals is walkin’ the walk in their personal energy use.

    When Steph an’ Steve an’ Jack an’ Gilles demonstrate that they’re concerned enuff t’ cut back on their own consumption, I might think ’bout givin’ ’em my vote.

    Yores trooly,
    JimBobby

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.