Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Kyoto's Good as Gone

TORONTO STAR
Harper praises non-Kyoto group as `the kind of initiative the world needs'
May 20, 2006. 01:00 AM
GRAHAM FRASER
NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1148077815503

GATINEAU, QUE.—Australian Prime Minister John Howard yesterday welcomed the idea of Canada joining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which includes countries that have not agreed to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

"Certainly, we would very warmly welcome Canada to join the partnership," Howard told reporters yesterday, after meeting with Stephen Harper at the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake.

Harper said he had discussed with Howard the idea of Canada becoming a participant.

"We believe it's the kind of initiative the world needs," Harper said.

The Asia-Pacific Partnership (APP) was formed last summer by the United States and Australia — neither one of which signed the Kyoto Protocol — and includes China, India, Japan and South Korea. The countries collectively produce 50 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The APP has no compulsory targets for reducing emissions, but focuses on developing new technologies.

"Unless you have the involvement of the major polluters, you're not going to have a serious addressing of the problem," said Howard, who added that the partnership is the first international arrangement that includes China, India and the United States.

Harper agreed that "if we're serious about climate change and controlling the greenhouse gases we clearly have to have an international regime that includes the largest emitters."

He said that China, India, the United States and others are either not part of the Kyoto Protocol or have no targets.

"We in Canada certainly welcome the initiative," Harper said. "As a government that finds itself left 35 per cent behind the Kyoto target with a need to do something, we think it's encouraging."

Harper said nuclear energy will be "an important part of the mix" in Canada's energy future, and Howard pointed out that Canada and Australia together have 43 per cent of the world's uranium reserves and 52 per cent of the world's uranium production.

Harper also said the government is "looking carefully" at a U.S. proposal that would compel uranium exporting countries like Canada to repatriate and dispose of spent nuclear fuel.

-------------

TORONTO STAR
Kyoto deals abandoned?
Hundreds of millions promised to provinces for climate change redirected
May 25, 2006. 07:30 PM

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...673&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

OTTAWA — The federal government appears set to walk away from Liberal agreements that would have given the provinces millions of dollars to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

A spokesman for Environment Minister Rona Ambrose indicated Thursday the Conservatives don’t feel bound by the previous government’s Kyoto-related undertakings.

The Liberals had promised $538 million to Ontario and $328 million to Quebec for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Memorandums of understanding had also been reached with Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan.

“Obviously with the new government things are being restructured in terms of funding for the provinces,” Ambrose’s press secretary Ryan Sparrow said in an interview.

There will be money for the provinces under a new clean-air initiative being developed, but the amounts have not been determined, he said.

“We have a made-in-Canada plan and money will be designated to certain projects based on our made-in-Canada plan.

“The final structure has not been finalized so we can’t comment on the specific dollar figures in terms of how it’s going to be played out so in terms of what each province is getting, we can’t comment at this time.”

A spokeswoman for Ontario Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Marie Bountrogianni said Ontario expects its agreement with the previous government to be honoured.

Ontario had planned to use the lion’s share of its money to shut down high-polluting coal-fired power plants.

Quebec Environment Minister Claude Bechard has demanded that the new government deliver $328 million on the same terms as received by Ontario, and has sought to rally other provinces on the issue.

Asked whether Quebec will get the money, Sparrow said, “We’ve invested $1.3 billion in public transit and Quebec will receive part of that $1.3 billion.”

NDP Leader Jack Layton condemned the Conservative move.

“The first shock was that they...abandoned our commitments on Kyoto, and then they abandon our commitments to the provinces, that were already set in motion. It’s a huge setback.”

Former environment minister Stephane Dion said the Conservatives’ decision to redirect the money is legal but morally wrong: “They are playing with the future of our children.”

Dion said that Conservatives have killed a plan to supply Prince Edward Island electricity entirely from wind power by 2015. “When I went there they said, `No, there is no deal anymore.’ So it’s a bit the same story everywhere.”

The Conservatives have promised their own clean-air plan but have given few hints about how it will work, when it will be ready or what kind of investments it may involve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
^^Hmmm I will give credit to Harper for tax incentives for public transit, but I get the feeling this government couldn't care less about the "environment." Long term result of this kind of thinking will be a disaster, if not the global warming, maybe all those chemicals in the air from all that burning of fossil fuels, how many kids have asthma these days? Any who if any body here is going to call me a hippie/tree huger, well I would love to have a discussion about environment and economy, because I know many will say that if you "reduce emissions" you hurt the economy, well, couldn't be further from the truth, I will go into more detail after I see some replies :cheers:

Btw Salvius, that site you have for electoral reform, couldn't agree more with you :)
 

·
Toon Town bandit
Joined
·
880 Posts
harper is not a trained seal, and as such he will do what he thinks it the better move towards a cleaner enviroment. i think that he could see through the libs agreement for what it was. that being bad for canada. I am glad he is a forward thinking leader who will go out of his way to change lib policy if it is faulty. we are lucky he is leading us insted of the crooks that have for far too long. i trust this man, and that is somthing i dont say very often. I wish i had voted for him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
whitefordj said:
harper is not a trained seal, and as such he will do what he thinks it the better move towards a cleaner enviroment.
APP is a joke; it's a desparate attempt to opt out of any evironmental responsibility while claiming to be doing something. Not that this is a suprise; anyone who thought that Tories would be environmentally conscious obviously has an empty head. I'd LOVE to hear from you as to how APP means cleaner environment.

whitefordj said:
i think that he could see through the libs agreement for what it was. that being bad for canada.
True, Dion's plan for Kyoto was an unfinished mish-mash at best, but it's sure as heck better than the shame that is APP.

whitefordj said:
I am glad he is a forward thinking leader who will go out of his way to change lib policy if it is faulty.
This policy suggests just the opposite: that he is a BACKWARD thinking leader willing to sacrifice our not-so-distant future for present political expediency. The Liberal Kyoto plan was too soft, true, but it's better than this slap in the face.

whitefordj said:
we are lucky he is leading us insted of the crooks that have for far too long. i trust this man, and that is somthing i dont say very often. I wish i had voted for him.
Yes, all hail Herr Harper and his glorious new regime!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,365 Posts
Kyoto won't work because China, India, Brazil and America haven't signed on. It's been a miserable failure, and we would be better off on our own plan. I think Harper and co will be able to think of something decent, while at the same time preserving the miniscule coal plants that, while being tiny and have smaller impact on our environment than the pulp mills that are encouraged to flourish, provide an obscene amount of tax revenue for the region.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
I think it would look really great on us if we signed on to both Kyoto and APP. Neither of them seems very realistic/effective on its own but the 2 of them combined would make a statement that we actually do care about the environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,365 Posts
'I think it would look really great on us if we signed on to both Kyoto and APP. Neither of them seems very realistic/effective on its own but the 2 of them combined would make a statement that we actually do care about the environment.'

'I will cut pollution 95% and plant a billion trees if Im elected!'
public: 'YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

And then he doesnt.

Why? Because it's unrealistic.

Then the public will complain that he lied.

If we set the bar too high, we'll sail under it in our appropriately named steam ship: 'The Utter Failure'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
You're right. Since we might not be overwhelmingly successful at meeting our Kyoto goals right away, we shouldn't bother. If India jumped off a bridge, would you do that too? India, Brazil, and China are hardly environmental role-models. A bad environment isn't just a global concern; there are, thankfully, domestic concerns too. Take the Fraser Valley for example: pollution from near the ocean gets blown further into the valley and reduces air quality in the Abbotsford area. That kind of directly visible consequence motivates people more than international ones, perhaps, but there can still be good local consequences from canada committing to (an actual) global climate-change plan.

A "Made-in-Canada" plan is a euphemism for no plan, and the APP an international non-plan.
I don't care if reducing Canadian emissions drives up prices and you jerks have to pay an extra 9 cents for your wal-mart crap shipped across the country in a cleaner truck. I am willing to pay a bit more for things, and I'm willing to make others pay more too.
 
Joined
·
655 Posts
Coffee Stain said:
^^Hmmm I will give credit to Harper for tax incentives for public transit, but I get the feeling this government couldn't care less about the "environment." Long term result of this kind of thinking will be a disaster, if not the global warming, maybe all those chemicals in the air from all that burning of fossil fuels, how many kids have asthma these days? Any who if any body here is going to call me a hippie/tree huger, well I would love to have a discussion about environment and economy, because I know many will say that if you "reduce emissions" you hurt the economy, well, couldn't be further from the truth, I will go into more detail after I see some replies :cheers:

Btw Salvius, that site you have for electoral reform, couldn't agree more with you :)

Well the thing is we have some problems in regards to greenhouse gas reduction. With our energy resources being a HUGE export it is not in our interest economically to meet the Accord. Now saying that I beleive that an economic agruement for reducing the use of petrochemicals domestically is that we stand to gain more by selling aboard and as little as possible domestically. We have the means in canada to be so much for efficient with our energy production domestically and that adds to a efford that will bring down Green house gases that canada produces. Waste hot water from electric plants comes to mind. In my area we burn coal with a new gas pipeline only 10 miles away shipping nova scotian off shore gas to new england. Converting to Gas fired boilers and using the waste hotwater for heating homes in the area would be a great solution. The best thing that can happen in regards to greenhouse gases is a barrel of oil going to 120 dollars a barrell US. You are starting to see the alternative energy sources coming more on stream with a 70 dollars barrell of oil . Imagine what would happen with 120 . what happens is the gain from changing over then becomes a profitable thing for community and countries in a large way. Our thinking should be to export as much as we can and not consume here to have great forieng trade surpluses.

jim jones
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
^^Good point, and I mean fossil fuels are used for many other things than burning for energy. Alternative energy sources should be the majority of the energy production in the country, im thinking 75%+, in countries like Denmark for example wind power is huge....

Investing a lot of money into alternative fuels will help the economy, not hurt it as some of those Big Oil "purchased politicians" would like to think....

Not only that but think of the reduction in dangerous emissions, this will mean less respiratory diseases, which btw are a huge burden on the Health care system...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
hmmm well kyoto was already a MISERABLE FAILURE for Canada. Face it were addicted to it and we've worked ouselves into a corner with no alternatives...

I'd rather spend money on making viable and attractive alternatives rather than just signing a treaty and telling Canadians to conserve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
hamiltonguyo said:
hmmm well kyoto was already a MISERABLE FAILURE for Canada.
Kind of hard to say, don't you think? Subsidy transfers to provinces never had a chance to take effect, for example, so it's impossible to know whether it was a failure or not.


hamiltonguyo said:
Face it were addicted to it and we've worked ouselves into a corner with no alternatives...
Addicted to what...? Spewing greenhouse gases at unsustainable rates? We have a green image, yet we are one of the most polluting industrial countries on earth. Obviously, other countries have learned to moderate their dependence... What exactly is stoping us?

It's not just global warming, either. Our atmosphere can't take endless amounts of CO2. It can make the planet uninhabitable to life. We're not close to that point yet, but considering what a buzz is being made about the plan to moderately try and cut the emissions slightly, I'm absolutely not convinced that we'll do anything even when complete doom is standing in our face.


hamiltonguyo said:
I'd rather spend money on making viable and attractive alternatives rather than just signing a treaty and telling Canadians to conserve.
Kyoto obviously isn't just about that... Kyoto is simply a target reduction. It's up to the country to try and find ways to reduce the emissions. In Canada, the plan has not been completely hammered out, but subsidy transfers to provinces for green-friendly products was one of the strategies. It seems that will be gone.

So, tell me now... What are viable alternatives? This is a problem that won't go away with a single technological 'magic bullet,' and yet APP is really mostly about not doing anything in the interim and hoping technology will eventually save us. It's not going to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
I'm glad we are out if it means we don't have to buy "credit" in 2012. It will cost us a fortune.
I agree with the principle of the idea and it atleasts was a good start but this is all the Liberals fault.
They had no plan at all from word go except for a make-work project for Rick Mercer.
He is just facing reality which the Liberals failed to do.
Under the Liberals our greenhouse gas emmision grew 35% in one decade. That is TRIPLE the rate of population growth. Only Newfoundland managed to even stabilize {little alone decrease} their emissions during that time but that was due to its population decline.
I don't trust Harper with the enviornment but they can't possibly be worse than the Liberals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
salvius said:
Kind of hard to say, don't you think? Subsidy transfers to provinces never had a chance to take effect, for example, so it's impossible to know whether it was a failure or not.




Addicted to what...? Spewing greenhouse gases at unsustainable rates? We have a green image, yet we are one of the most polluting industrial countries on earth. Obviously, other countries have learned to moderate their dependence... What exactly is stoping us?

It's not just global warming, either. Our atmosphere can't take endless amounts of CO2. It can make the planet uninhabitable to life. We're not close to that point yet, but considering what a buzz is being made about the plan to moderately try and cut the emissions slightly, I'm absolutely not convinced that we'll do anything even when complete doom is standing in our face.




Kyoto obviously isn't just about that... Kyoto is simply a target reduction. It's up to the country to try and find ways to reduce the emissions. In Canada, the plan has not been completely hammered out, but subsidy transfers to provinces for green-friendly products was one of the strategies. It seems that will be gone.

So, tell me now... What are viable alternatives? This is a problem that won't go away with a single technological 'magic bullet,' and yet APP is really mostly about not doing anything in the interim and hoping technology will eventually save us. It's not going to happen.
Who knew if it would work. Sides do you really trust provinces with a whole bunch of cash? I expect they'll turn around and spend it on something else. What i'd rather see is a scraped Kyoto with a "we'll sign onto it when we can actually meet our goals" attitude. Right now we can't.

Why? Because we are addicted to a suburban lifestyle and there are no attractive alternatives to oil for us plain and simple. We also love our electricity and are too greedy to conserve it unless we have incentive to do so (ie tax credits on energy efficient air conditioners).

One thing I'd like to see is equipping more buildings with solar panels on the roofs. I am trying to convince our church to do it so they can earn money to pay off the morgage.
 

·
Toon Town bandit
Joined
·
880 Posts
i take the enviroment as a personal responsibiliy. i am just glad that they scrapped that heap of crap, thing called kyoto. moreover im so glad we scrapped the libs. any deal they made should be revisited. im sure that some how, or some way, they are shady deals to say the least. so it is with great pleasure that this news comes to many of us. i dont care that he isnt perfect. he sure seems to be a much straighter shooter than all of the other PMs of the past . I say lets look on the bright side of this new conservative government, and that being the fact that we have already saved some money and jobs.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
^^Appearances can be decieving, we have to be careful :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
whitefordj said:
i take the enviroment as a personal responsibiliy.
This statement blew my mind. How can environment POISSIBLY be in the realm of personal responsibility? Environment is something that influences us SO directly; the fact that you pollute and I don't doesn't mean you will suffer its effects, and I won't. Your statement, in fact, makes no sense.


whitefordj said:
i am just glad that they scrapped that heap of crap, thing called kyoto.
So far, you haven't provided a single good reason, aside from ideological platitudes, and partisan blindness.


whitefordj said:
moreover im so glad we scrapped the libs. any deal they made should be revisited. im sure that some how, or some way, they are shady deals to say the least. so it is with great pleasure that this news comes to many of us. i dont care that he isnt perfect. he sure seems to be a much straighter shooter than all of the other PMs of the past . I say lets look on the bright side of this new conservative government, and that being the fact that we have already saved some money and jobs.:)
Again, just more partisan blindness, and frankly, ignorance.
 

·
Toon Town bandit
Joined
·
880 Posts
if even an partisan, blind, ingnorant sap like me could see that the libs are crooks. why cant you? as for proof, what more proof do you need? if the gun feasco cost 2 big ones how much do you thing that thing would cost us? You might need more reasons, but i sure dont. and i dont think that i need to provide them for you as well. you would just find a way to say that it was all on the up and up anyhow. just because you use big words dosnt make your argument important, you should find some facts to back up what you say before you say them your self. for one it has a big impact on our inviroment when we take it personaly. if we all did it would be much better for the earth. no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly05260601.asp
Science Matters by David Suzuki
Science Matters is published weekly in newspapers across Canada.

Buying your love, one word at a time

May 26, 2006

When words get in the way of your agenda, what do you do? You change the words, of course. Even if you have to make up new ones.

It's part of what communications strategists call "framing" - the way they present messages to the public to make them more palatable. And it's become a big part of how the new Conservative government plans to win you over.

Think tax relief, not tax cuts. Think climate change, not global warming. Think responsible development, not sustainable development. These words and phases are not casual alterations. They are deliberate, tested and designed to sway public opinion. And they work.

Recently, Prime Minister Harper invited American pollster and political strategist Frank Luntz for a visit. It was a telling move, given Mr. Luntz's impact on discourse in the United States. In fact, Mr. Luntz's efforts have been credited in part for President Bush's re-election. While Democratic candidate John Kerry should have had a field day with Mr. Bush's poor economic, environmental and military leadership records, Kerry blathered on in the language of specialists, leaving the public cold. Meanwhile, George W. talked the plain language of the people, using Mr. Luntz's carefully crafted words and phrases, and repeating them over and over until they became accepted as the norm.

Like Canada's Conservatives, the Republicans were perceived as uninterested, even hostile, to environmental conservation. Mr. Luntz helped reverse that perception by changing the language and the way Republicans talked about the environment. These changes made it seem as though Republicans were indeed concerned about the environment and were presenting solutions that protected nature, even though their policies often did the exact opposite. Programs to increase logging became "healthy forests" projects. Relaxed air pollution rules became "clear skies" initiatives.

Under Mr. Luntz's tutelage, it comes as no surprise now in Canada to be hearing talk by the Conservatives of a "clean air act" and a "made in Canada" plan instead of the Kyoto Protocol. This last phrase, used to describe the Conservative's upcoming and yet unseen climate change plan, is a classic piece of spin. The name implies that whatever came before it was made outside of Canada and is therefore foreign and scary.

In fact, the previous government's plan - which Mr. Harper has systematically eliminated, including such things as scrapping the Energuide program, which provided rebates for homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient (thereby saving money and reducing emissions) - was also made in Canada. And Kyoto itself contains a wide variety of measures demanded by Canada to make it easier for us to meet our targets and reduce global warming.

Then again, you won't hear Mr. Harper talking about global warming in any case. When he mentions the issue, which is rarely, he sticks to "climate change" - the specialist's term. Why? Simple, because it isn't scary. It takes the disturbing idea of an entire planet heating up and turns it into something that sounds more like a change of seasons.

Is Mr. Harper lying by using these terms? No, but he's playing on the fact that Canadians don't have the time to figure out what they mean. The words sound good. They sound like something positive. After all, who doesn't want to be responsible and clean? Who doesn't want something that's been made in Canada?

Mr. Harper is banking on the public not figuring out what these things really mean until after the next election - where the possibility of a majority government looms tantalizingly within reach. So close, in fact, that the prime minister must be feeling like - well, I don't know the word, but I'm sure Mr. Luntz will help him make one up.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top