Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


On self-interest

If you’re wondering why Stephen Harper and his Cons. don’t want anything to do with binding targets on climate change, and why his intensity targets proposal is nothing more then rhetoric, read this article over at DeSmogBlog, the excellent environmentally conscious blogsite. Any binding emissions targets will probably slow down Steve’s attempts to become an “energy superpower”, and also puts a bit of a dent into the profits of Big Oil, his foremost supporters out in Alberta.

You’ll also see why Dubya has no interest in binding targets either, though thankfully for us and the world, he’ll be gone in about a year, replaced in all likelihood by someone (read Democrat) who is much more environmentally conscious and responsible. Hopefully by that time, Canadians will have already done the same thing with Deceivin’ Stephen, Blowhard Baird, and the rest of this Cons. crew, who put profit ahead of the environment.


8 comments to On self-interest

  • ALW


    You didn’t answer my question at all.  From what you’ve said, Harper’s not doing anything for Big Oil. He’s responding to the population of Alberta. 

    Bulivespipe – even if your conspiracy theories are right, how many votes is Big Oil going to cast in the next election? Zero?

  • There is also a covert donation plan that is being used by big oil to fund the likes of Harper, but this can’t be verified. It is my belief, however, that they are collecting tax receipts for employees on monthly donations — all legal if the employee is giving his consent and receives the said receipts.
    They are also taking extreme advantage of the ‘under $20 loophole’ which flies under EC’s radar. Note the past errors of donations by Harper himself; this could have been caused by a glitch in the system.

  • Gayle

    I can answer that ALW – by telling people in Alberta that if Dion gets his way on climate change they will pack up and leave. That is exactly what they did with the royalties debate here – they went so far as to pay their employees to come to the legislature and protest the royalties panel’s recommendations. They put the fear into Albertans that the economy will collapse if the liberals win the next election – not a difficult thing to sell here.

  • ALW

    Question: how is "Big Oil" supporting Harper if corporate donations are now banned?

  • Scotty, I do figger the Dems might treat ol’ Mother Earth better than the Repugs. They might not rape her as viciously but rape her they will. Until Al Gore throws his hat in the ring and is elected by a sizable majority of Merkans, we can continue to expect the environment-versus-economy mentality to guide Merkan green policy.


  • You overlook the fact JimBobby, that the Democrats don’t have the votes to override a Presidential Veto on Iraq, or the environment… and I am not as cynical as you that if a Democratic President is elected, and more Dems are elected in Congress ( as appears will be the case) that the Environment won’t be treated more seriously.

    As for Fred’s spiel, I’ve already mentioned what I think he needs to do.

  • Whooee! Fred needs to learn how to break his copy’n’paste prose into paragraphs. Nobody reads paragraphs that are 1,100+ words long. Nobody. I got one word for Fred: whitespace.

    I got very little faith that Merkan democrats will do a better job on green stuff than the Repugs. Merkan Dems are at least as business-friendly and as protectionist as Republicans. The environment has been a complete non-issue in the US nomination races. Bush and company have successfully cast doubt on the whole concept of AGW and man-made climate change. They’ve done this by censoring the work of government scientists and agencies. Their success at sowing seeds of doubt where it benefits Merkan industry and business has framed the issue as environment versus economy.

    The problem: a large number of Merkan voters, including Democratic voters and the Democratic candidates, have bought into the economic arguments and BushCo framing. What does Hillary have to say about climate change? Obama? Merkan candidates are scared shitless to even bring up anything that might stifle the US economy. They are too unimaginative or uninspired or unconvinced to risk broaching the subject of saving the planet. Romney and Guiliani are no better or worse on the green file.

    The great Canadian hope that a more enlightened Democratic party will undo the damage done by Dubya’s eight years is misplaced. The Merkans elected a Dem congress 13 months ago. Ostensibly, the voters expected a dramatic change in course in EyeRack. The Dems control both US houses. How’s that EyeRack withdrawl thing goin’, so far? How much has the new Democtraic Party controlled congress deviated from the Bush doctrine? How many troops have been brought home? How’s the new congress doing on the trade dispute issues like softwood and beef?

    Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, Scotty.


  • Fred from Canuckistan . . .!15
    Dishonest political tampering with the science on global warming

    edited by Scott.. If you want to post stuff Fred, learn to leave columns that arent longer then my pieces.. or at least learn how to use the editor here properly. Or better yet, get your own blog and use it as a soapbox. You also need to be using a valid email address before I let you post anything.

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