Kyoto? - lets be realistic

[ThighMan]

www.canada.com
The government would have to drive the country into a recession and Canadians would be faced with unemployment and soaring gas and energy prices in order to meet Kyoto commitments, the environment minister said Thursday.

“Based on what we already know, Bill C-288 with its deep reduction in emissions beginning in January is not the answer we’re looking for,” Baird told the Senate committee. “The economics just don’t add up.”

The environment minister said that if C-288 became law, every Canadian family, business and industry would have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by one-third starting in just eight months.

“There is only one way to make this happen, the government would need to manufacture a recession,” Baird warned.

He went on to outline some of the costs that he says would be borne by the entire economy and that would trickle down to every single Canadian.

Electricity bills, heating and gas prices would soar, businesses would have to scale back or cease production and that would lead to job losses for Canadians, according to Baird’s report.

“Our analysis shows that by 2009, over 275,000 Canadians working today would lose their jobs and become unemployed…I believe this is a massive and unacceptable cost for Canadian families,” he said.

He predicted that electricity bills would jump by 50 per cent after 2010, prices at the pump would shoot up by 60 per cent and natural gas prices to heat home would double.

He called the Liberal-initiated bill “reckless” and said his government is taking a realistic and responsible approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting the environment.

The Conservatives’ have already taken considerable action in recent months, said Baird, and will “soon” be unveiling the industrial regulation component of its plan. The government has promised to impose mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction targets on industry but has yet to make them public.

Despite his warnings of economic ruin, Baird said Canada remains committed to the principles of Kyoto.

For those of your out there that say Canada has to follow Kyoto good, bad or indifferent, are you willing to loose your job for Canada to meet the Kyoto requirements. Or are you one of those who say yes lets meet the Kyoto requirements and if someone else looses their job will sorry but thats just too bad.

Lets be realistic here people. While I agree that man is having an effect on the envirionment and we should do what we can to reduce and possibly even somewhat reverse that effect, we cannot change it over night and why should we destroy Canada in order to do so. We need to come up with a gradual plan that works for Canada. Also, until the US does something, anything we do here is not going to make much of a difference. That doesn't me we should do nothing, it just means lets make the rate of reduction realistic and attainable, and something that the average Canadian can live with.

 

[Pantylick]

I Agree Completely

I have strong doubts that global warming exists. I have no doubt that C02 is increasing, but is this increasing the temperature? Scientists say that the average temperature will increase between 1 and 6 degrees during the next century. Given that the earth's average temperture is around 14C, this is an admission that they have no idea on what they are talking about. 12000 years ago, all of North America was caused by ice - that ice age ended without man's input. At one time the arctic was icefree and subtropical. The earth's temperture is not a constant. In the middle ages, there was a mini-iceage which caused the Vikings to move out of Greenland, wine to stop being grown in England, the plague to end, and painters of the time to paint skaters in Holland.

 

[LonelyGhost]

IMHO there are lots of simple, cheap and effective means to
reduce pollution and greenhouse gases ... but they would take
political balls to implement them so they go for the expensive,
complex, and inefficient means of looking like they are doing
something so they don't have to do anything.

end of story.

 

[citylover]

As a public service, I've found a purty picture that sums up the arguments of the "fuck science, we know what we know" crowd...

now they don't have to post anymore, and we can move on to better things. And even if they won't read it, they can at least look at the pics.

(Note this cartoon was published in 2004 & we're still hearing the same drivel from the stooges).

 

[jjinvan]

As a public service, I've found a purty picture that sums up the arguments of the "fuck science, we know what we know" crowd...

now they don't have to post anymore, and we can move on to better things. And even if they won't read it, they can at least look at the pics.

(Note this cartoon was published in 2004 & we're still hearing the same drivel from the stooges).

The biggest sources of CO2 emissions are China and India.

So, if you want to 'do your part' to reduce CO2 emissions, don't buy ANYTHING made in China or India.

If everyone in Canada did that, it would have a stronger impact on CO2 emissions than bankrupting ourselves to try to follow Kyoto.

So, let's get the government to ban all imports from China and India.

 

[SilkyJohnson]

china and india arent bound by kyoto. 2 billion can pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere they want. Maybe Co2 isnt the source of global warming. whats that big glowing ball in the sky????????

 

[citylover]

The biggest sources of CO2 emissions are China and India.

So, if you want to 'do your part' to reduce CO2 emissions, don't buy ANYTHING made in China or India.

If everyone in Canada did that, it would have a stronger impact on CO2 emissions than bankrupting ourselves to try to follow Kyoto.

So, let's get the government to ban all imports from China and India.

I'm surprised the internet doktor would promote any policy that, according to him, comes directly from a socialist agenda (i.e., actually do something about Global Warming, that strategy to make Al Gore socialist king of the world sarcasm alert for the humor impaired)

While useless as a strategy -- as India & China's development, like most countries, are mostly driven by internal dynamics -- this is really quite reasonable coming from the internet doktor.

It's a lot more reasonable than a lot of his posts, which, in his heart-of-hearts, probably actually means something like "Let's just shoot any yellow-skinned or dark-skinned person on sight. They're all commies."

 

[jjinvan]

While useless as a strategy -- as India & China's development, like most countries, are mostly driven by internal dynamics -- this is really quite reasonable coming from the internet doktor.

If you are saying that India and China aren't driving their economies with money from exports, maybe you should try looking up some numbers.

Imagine if Canada and the US banned all imports from China. Wow.

My point is quite simple, if you have a 'widget' that is made in Canada and made in China and the one made in China is made using electricity from coal or oil burning plants and the one made in Canada is made using electricity from hydro dams, obviously the one made in Canada is 'greener'. So, instead of imposing carbon taxes on the Canadian company and therefore making SURE that people will buy the one made in China, and so increasing the overall C02 production in the world, let's just ban the importation of those widgets from China.

I'm not sure why you think that I would be against keeping jobs in Canada instead of exporting our economy to China through taxes on Canadian manufacturers and producers.

 

[curious yellow]

Interesting how the Cons are worried about job losses and the alleged cost to the economy. Back about 20 years ago under the Mullrony Cons, they were selling out Canada and our economy and our jobs, in the hundreads of thousands, to the USA with their Free Trade scam. Funny how when its' something the Cons want, the cost to Canada doesn't matter to them. But when it's something other parties want, that does matter, the Cons are against it and do their fear mongering. That's political hypocracy for you.

 

[Tatortot]

(note I knew we would be hearing from this stooge)

Yes I knew it too but you have to admit him and that other know nothing stooge are some good entertainment. Anytime you need a good laugh just check out his pea brain posts, lol.

 

[jjinvan]

Interesting how the Cons are worried about job losses and the alleged cost to the economy. Back about 20 years ago under the Mullrony Cons, they were selling out Canada and our economy and our jobs, in the hundreads of thousands, to the USA with their Free Trade scam. Funny how when its' something the Cons want, the cost to Canada doesn't matter to them. But when it's something other parties want, that does matter, the Cons are against it and do their fear mongering. That's political hypocracy for you.

Mulrooney was NOT a 'conservative'. He was a "Progressive Conservative" and that party doesn't exist anymore.

The current "Conservative Party" is pretty much a merger of the old Alliance Party and Reform Party.

The old "Progressive Conservatives" were basically Liberals, and many of them are NOW sitting as Liberal members of Parliment (Didn't Mulrooney sit as a Liberal at one point too?)

 

[curious yellow]

Mulrooney was NOT a 'conservative'. He was a "Progressive Conservative" and that party doesn't exist anymore.

The current "Conservative Party" is pretty much a merger of the old Alliance Party and Reform Party.

The old "Progressive Conservatives" were basically Liberals, and many of them are NOW sitting as Liberal members of Parliment (Didn't Mulrooney sit as a Liberal at one point too?)

Yes, I am well aware that Mulrony was a "Progressive Con" and that the so called Cons now were, and are, still Reform Alliance. The old Conservatives were not basically Liberals. Yes some Conservatives have changed to Liberal, but some Liberals have also become Conservatives. As for Mullrony sitting as a Liberal, to the best of my knowledge and recollection he wasn't. Maybe someone can research and find out for sure if he was or wasn't.

But it still doesn't change the fact that Harper and his cohorts have put the "Con" back into "Conservative". They're conning voters into thinking they are voting for the old "Progressive Conservatives" when in fact they are voting for Reformers. I recall one of the goals of the Reform party back in the early 80's was for the west to separate from Canada. I wonder what else these Reform Cons have on their hidden agenda. I hope I never find out.

 

[sdw]

Mulrooney was NOT a 'conservative'. He was a "Progressive Conservative" and that party doesn't exist anymore.

The current "Conservative Party" is pretty much a merger of the old Alliance Party and Reform Party.

The old "Progressive Conservatives" were basically Liberals, and many of them are NOW sitting as Liberal members of Parliment (Didn't Mulrooney sit as a Liberal at one point too?)

It is always well to actually research the origins of political partys.

Brian Mulroney was always a Progressive Conservative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney

In 1993 Brian Mulroney knew that the coalition that he had put together for his national vision as expressed by the Meech Lake agreement was falling apart because the West felt that Quebec was getting too much, Quebec felt they were getting too little and the Atlantic felt they were being ignored. There was also great resistance to Brian Mulroney's adoption of international agreements which had been historically resisted by Progressive Conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada
Kim Campbell won the PC Leadership Convention and took the country into the 1993 federal election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

The PCs only elected 2 people. In the following PC Leadership Convention Joe Clark regained leadership of the Progressive Conservatives, but was unable to rebuild the party past 15 elected members.

The Reform party lead by Preston Manning managed to garner most of the PC support in the West and the Bloc managed to garner most of the PC support in Quebec.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Canada

The Reform Party was strictly a regional party and it was thought that a new party would become national so the Alliance Party was created.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009255

The Alliance Party also became a regional party and so the current Conservative Alliance Party was created. Most people drop the Alliance portion of the name, however the correct name of the party that holds our current minority government under Steven Harper is the Conservative Alliance Party of Canada.

Joe Clark attempted to create a new party when he lost the convention that created the Conservative Alliance and selected it's leader. The new party didn't have any support and Joe Clark ended up sitting as a Liberal.

 

[ThighMan]

Interesting how the Cons are worried about job losses and the alleged cost to the economy.

So cy, does that mean that you are willing to lose your job in order for Canada to meet the Kyoto limits? A simple yes or no will do.

Back about 20 years ago under the Mullrony Cons, they were selling out Canada and our economy and our jobs, in the hundreads of thousands, to the USA with their Free Trade scam.

Really? And in which reality did this occur? Not in this one because the number of jobs created by the Free Trade deal was many times greater than the number of jobs lost. Why don't you get your facts straight next time before just spouting off.

 

[jjinvan]

It is always well to actually research the origins of political partys.

Brian Mulroney was always a Progressive Conservative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney

In 1993 Brian Mulroney knew that the coalition that he had put together for his national vision as expressed by the Meech Lake agreement was falling apart because the West felt that Quebec was getting too much, Quebec felt they were getting too little and the Atlantic felt they were being ignored. There was also great resistance to Brian Mulroney's adoption of international agreements which had been historically resisted by Progressive Conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada
Kim Campbell won the PC Leadership Convention and took the country into the 1993 federal election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

The PCs only elected 2 people. In the following PC Leadership Convention Joe Clark regained leadership of the Progressive Conservatives, but was unable to rebuild the party past 15 elected members.

The Reform party lead by Preston Manning managed to garner most of the PC support in the West and the Bloc managed to garner most of the PC support in Quebec.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Canada

The Reform Party was strictly a regional party and it was thought that a new party would become national so the Alliance Party was created.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009255

The Alliance Party also became a regional party and so the current Conservative Alliance Party was created. Most people drop the Alliance portion of the name, however the correct name of the party that holds our current minority government under Steven Harper is the Conservative Alliance Party of Canada.

Joe Clark attempted to create a new party when he lost the convention that created the Conservative Alliance and selected it's leader. The new party didn't have any support and Joe Clark ended up sitting as a Liberal.

So, like I said:

The current Conservative Alliance Party, ie: Harper's party, has no more similarity to Mulrooney's Progressive Conservative party than the Liberal party does.

I doubt that Harper is 'tricking' anyone into thinking he's like Mulrooney. Who actually would vote for Mulrooney these days? Not too many people.

 

[ThighMan]

It is always well to actually research the origins of political partys.

The Alliance Party also became a regional party and so the current Conservative Alliance Party was created. Most people drop the Alliance portion of the name, however the correct name of the party that holds our current minority government under Steven Harper is the Conservative Alliance Party of Canada.

Based on the 2003 election results, if by regional you mean having seats in every Province except Quebec and PEI then you are correct. But wouldn't this make the Liberals regional as well since they didn't have any seats in Manitoba or Alberta and only 1 seat in Saskatchewan?

Joe Clark attempted to create a new party when he lost the convention that created the Conservative Alliance and selected it's leader. The new party didn't have any support and Joe Clark ended up sitting as a Liberal.

If this is research then you get an F sdw. Joe Clark never ended up sitting as a Liberal.

 

[curious yellow]

So cy, does that mean that you are willing to lose your job in order for Canada to meet the Kyoto limits? A simple yes or no will do.

Really? And in which reality did this occur? Not in this one because the number of jobs created by the Free Trade deal was many times greater than the number of jobs lost. Why don't you get your facts straight next time before just spouting off.

I see you've bought in to the con that jobs will be lost and the economy will collapse. Maybe some will, but at the same time other jobs will have to be created to help clean up the environment.

As for the jobs created by free trade, where were most of then created? Hmmm, let's see, the USA, India, China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh come to mind. But that aside, as you point out even though jobs were lost and the economy took a hit under free trade, Canada will survive any job loss resulting from Kyoto. Another question, why do jobs or the economy have to suffer for big industry to clean up their mess. Many of these big industries are making record profits. Why can't they use some of those record profits to clean up their mess, instead of sticking it to Canadians?

 

[curious yellow]

So, like I said:

The current Conservative Alliance Party, ie: Harper's party, has no more similarity to Mulrooney's Progressive Conservative party than the Liberal party does.

I doubt that Harper is 'tricking' anyone into thinking he's like Mulrooney. Who actually would vote for Mulrooney these days? Not too many people.

True enough, the current Conservative Reform Alliance party has no similarity to the previous Progressive Conservatives.

Just to clarify, I wasn't implying. or at least didn't intend to, that Harper was trying to pass himself off like he's Mulrooney. What I was trying to say is that to a lot of people they still think the current Conservatives are basically the same as the previous Progressive Conservatives, Harper and Mulroony aside. As you know and admit, they are not the same party at all. As you may recall, Joe Clark, once he found out what this current version of the Conservatives agenda was, Joe refused to have anything to do with them.

 

[sdw]

Based on the 2003 election results, if by regional you mean having seats in every Province except Quebec and PEI then you are correct. But wouldn't this make the Liberals regional as well since they didn't have any seats in Manitoba or Alberta and only 1 seat in Saskatchewan?



If this is research then you get an F sdw. Joe Clark never ended up sitting as a Liberal.

I'm assuming that you meant the 2004 election. The attached link shows the Liberals had seats in every province.

Results of 2000 election
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2000#Results_by_province

Results of 2004 election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2004#Results_by_province

You are correct about Joe Clark. Just shows the value of checking information rather than relying on memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Clark

 

[ThighMan]

I see you've bought in to the con that jobs will be lost and the economy will collapse. Maybe some will, but at the same time other jobs will have to be created to help clean up the environment.

As for the jobs created by free trade, where were most of then created? Hmmm, let's see, the USA, India, China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh come to mind. But that aside, as you point out even though jobs were lost and the economy took a hit under free trade, Canada will survive any job loss resulting from Kyoto. Another question, why do jobs or the economy have to suffer for big industry to clean up their mess. Many of these big industries are making record profits. Why can't they use some of those record profits to clean up their mess, instead of sticking it to Canadians?

cy - As I expected you cannot even answer a simple question. The only con artists around are the Liberals and NDP who think that everyone should be supported by the government. If some bum comes up to you on the street and asks for money I suppose you give it to him. Me, I tell them to get a job and walk on. They put themselves in their current situation. It is not my fault nor societies.

Also, last time I checked India, China, Pakistan and Banglasesh were not part of the North America Free Trade Deal. But perhaps you have some more current information. LOL

Finally, it is obvious you did not read my opening comments. I never said we should not do anything to reduce our greenhouse gas emmisions. I only said that we needed to be realisting about how we went about it and not be stuck with an unrealistic and unachievable timeline set out by Kyoto.