Today the Canadian government led on another spectacle on climate change with hypocritical comments on improving the state of environmental affairs. The Ontario and Quebec Premiers: McGuinty and Charest are used as anecdotes to any morsel of intelligent thought, by promoting the cap-and-trade plan to lower carbon emissions...after Canada failed to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets in 2006. Of course, failed political economies exist only to the mere thought of the industrial complex? Yes, Rona Ambrose who was the Minister of the Environment at that time claimed to develop new ways to tackle on climate change, no concrete idea or thought has surfaced. The simple reason is that Canada is an Oil/Gas powerhouse recognized internationally, and by enacting a Clean Air Act, it would conflict with the Canadian economy and these politicians are aware that if unemployment rates are high in Canada, the public will vote for new politicians to take their place. This notion places internal affairs first, rather than the public right. Their words speak for themselves,"The federal government has the power to sign treaties, they do not have the power to commit us in our areas of jurisdiction." Charest said in today's article.
Under Parliament, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999, Federal-Provincial jurisdictions are imbued to enact effective environmental laws, but yet these options are not exercised. A national law on Clean Air enforceable by Cabinet must be proposed in the Canadian Gazette I, II, & III and distributed amongst industries to adequately address any feasibility issues when this law is registered. This will actually "move the ball forward," instead of Premier McGuinty making that same remark, but without merit.
Yours Truly,
-Waterloo University: Alex.C, PSCI-260
CBC Canada, 2006 http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.html
Justice Department of Canada, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#provincial
21 comments:
Dalton McGuinty's Liberals subsidize a NEW V8 engine plant in Ontario, don't close coal power plants like they promised to, then turn around and sign a meaningless pact like this. And the media and environmental groups fawn over them like gullible, star-struck teenagers.
The federal Conservatives have done nothing.? The NDP's Jack Layton said the same about the federal Liberals who SIGNED Kyoto. Stephan Dion, after saying for years he opposed a carbon tax, now says he wants one. Why.? Because Quebec and BC had the courage to do it first.
Stephan Dion is not showing good environmental leadership. He's showing political opportunism now and cowardice for not doing it first.
And what's so great about this cap-and-trade deal anyway.? Is there anything definite agreed to.? Probably not. Like John Baird said "just smoke and mirrors". One would hope a truly objective press would find that out.
Yeah I was search stringing through some blogs and your site got tagged for canadian polictics, climate change is crap I do agree, and the canadian government is conflicting in coherent thought since Harper demotes the idea on cbc:
"In response, Prime Minister Stephen Harper criticized the plan for not establishing a regulatory mechanism and suggested the new Montreal Climate Exchange will have to fill that void."
You're right that there is no regulations in place to enforce clean air and should be, well said and true.
Peace,
Jeremy L. (Conservative Party Advocate)
Has anyone noticed that neither province has stated clearly that they will regulate industry (normally a notice of intent would be published in the provincial Gazette and thus it is not even clear if this is a regulatory or voluntary plan); that no industrial sectors have been named; that no emission reduction targets have been announced for this new bloc; that no details on trading or other compliance mechanisms have been announced; that no details on enforcement, funding or other necessary components have been released; that in short, there is no plan at all: is this all it takes to get several days of glowing free uncritical publicity from second rate journalists such as those that apparently report on climate change at the Globe and Mail? Also when this "national" cap-and-trade system is spoken of by the Premier why did the Globe and Mail not mention that BC and Manitoba are already part of a continental system which is much further advanced, the Western Climate Initiative, and that perhaps a "national" system makes no sense? Are Globe and Mail articles ghost written by Liberal party staff or by environmental groups that make their living by sowing confusion and hype?
Regards,
Sean Price
I believe that industries and farms produce a lot of by-products that pollute of our air and water. There is too much carbon in the air, and too much animal waste in the rivers. I heard that we are producing 25% of the worlds pollutants. The worrisome thought is if we do not take the lead in cleaning up our messes it is only going to get worse. China is developing and the thought is for them to build many many coal burning facilities for energy, amounting to 1 coal burning facility a week.
Supposedly the last 10 hottest years on record were recorded in the last 14 years since we have kept records. If I had my druthers, I would support a change to the EPA. Since regulation does not seem to work as it is, maybe the solution is stricter enforcement of environmental laws by increasing the staff of the EPA. Inclusively, the laws should be stricter or at the very least strictly applied. I have heard of stories of people going fishing and coming back with leasions from polutants, passing out while in the boat, and memory loss.
My assumption is businesses and the farm industry pay lobbyists to subjugate the laws and enforcement. It is probably more economically viable to do that and take the possible loss from a penalty then change their current wasteful processes. It is up to the individual citizen and local governments to make inroads into the pollution dilemma, and maybe the national and states legislatures will take notice and do the right thing?
The opposite view could be that the naysayers need funding to lead their fight against something.
One has to believe that dumping billions of tons of dirt and poisons into the air and water would have an affect on the environment. That should be obvious to most reasonable people.
Would anyone be willing to lock themselves into an air-tight room with smog or industrial crap being pumped into it and breathe that crap 24/7? I wouldn't.
The best case scenario is that we waste money and there was no threat to the environment. The worst case scenario is that there was a threat and we chose to ignore it and wasted money on something else and the situation was avoidable.
-Moranga
Yorkshire, England
Im amazed of the constant problems that have been coming out of Nigeria over the last year. It seems like every damn week someone does something in that country that screws up oil production somehow.
But I love listening to the new Lib talking point that drilling for oil isn't the answer.
EurAsia is heating up in oil prices industrialization for most part of China, but this is also a good thing... Why? It'll force industries to change their market liberal ways and R&D greener technologies like Toyota and Honda, some of their trucks in Japan are even hybrids and a greener economy is a better one.
http://www.shiotsu-used-car.com/blog...from-japan.htm
Right now, if we had stricter emission targets like Japan that forced industries to comply with lower emissions and better fuel-efficiency then gas prices wouldn't be in such short supply as it is today.
Back to the drawing board for us.
Sorry broken link here it is again:
http://www.shiotsu-used-car.com/blog/hybrid-trucks-from-japan.htm
I blame Exxon Mobile for all this gasoline carbon crisis.
First off...I NEVER buy a drop from Exxon knowingly (say that because who knows nowadays if they are selling their product to others who sell it under another name/brand).
Secondly, Bush is a republican (supports business) from Texas (produces & manages oil) and who put/has our military in a region that produces most of the world's oil at this time. Bush talks about alternatives but does NOTHING meaningful to support the change.
Thirdly, I am pissed about our taxes and the cost of oil and everything else that is derived from oil. And yes...I think the government should step in and prevent money-grubbing jerks in the oil industry from taking us consumers to the cleaners every time something negative happens. Why is it that when the stock market hiccups or an Arab, the price of oil/gas rockets within hours then takes weeks or months afterwards to go back down? The government allows the volatility because it drives the profits up for those in charge both in the industry and the government.
Forthly, I have a 401K plan and put in as much as I can knowing that it probably won't be enough to live when I am 70 years old...God willing I live that long.
-Creeps
the fight against climate change cannot be an obstacle impeding the development of the over 100 countries that have yet to attain it and which, by the way, are not the historic culprits of what has happened; it has to be compatible with the sustainable development of our countries. We reject the pressures directed to the underdeveloped countries so that these enter into binding commitments to reduce emissions. What is more, the portion of global emissions pertaining to the underdeveloped countries must increase in order to meet the needs of their socio-economic development. The developed countries have no moral authority to demand anything on this issue.
Canada is just a spectacle, kyoto protocol proved it to the international community
More like cap and scam——last year a pulp mill in port mellon switched to coal power their emissions went up 40%–McGuinty gave all companies a heads up that cap and trade was coming!—-so most companies have inflated their emissions,making it easy to reduce –the game is on! watch for the shadow companies (subsidiaries) to be buying emissions from each other— cap is fine –but trade, yikes!– can you say–ASSET BACKED EMISSION SECURITIES
-johnny appleseed
Interesting post. However, I think there may be a key element missing. States are not going down the carbon auction road alone. They are attached at the hip to other states in regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the east and the Western Climate Initiative in the west are just two efforts, yet they will include over a dozen states combined. These regional groups will have the same rules, standards and procedures across participating states. I think this will serve to breakup some of the potential contentiousness described in the post.
Also, keep in mind that the regional groups are working directly with the states to write rules and legislation that will determine how the auction proceeds are distributed and invested. These are monies that will go largely to projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, invest in clean tech and renewables and raise awareness among the general public, especially on the energy efficiency issue.
The federal battle is whole other ballgame but the regional work is and will continue to inform and influence the eventual national climate change policy.
Despite what you people think, at least politicians are making green initiatives that pales in comparison to your arm-chair ridicule.
Greenpeace and the the National Resource Council Canada claimed that: the ice in Canada's western Hudson Bay breaks up 2 1/2 weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, giving polar bears there less time to hunt and build up fat reserves that sustain them for eight months before hunting resumes. Polar bears have become thinner, female polar bears' reproductive rates and cubs' survival rates have fallen, spurring a 21 percent population drop from 1997 to 2004. The bears have resorted to open-water swimming and even cannibalism in an effort to stay alive.
So you see it's not just an idea but a broader outlook on the damages upon the environment!
We Need More Green Initiatives You Idiots! Go Out and Support The Cause!
The answer to a question like this relies to a certain degree on what one means by "solve". If one means can the US solve the problem by fostering greater understanding of what's going on and help to bring about cleaner,safer, and more abundant energy so that natural resources can be better protected and less threatened by a material goods craving expanding population around the world that no longer has to destroy its coastal forests and burn all its trees to feed its children, surprisingly I think we can if we don't loose what initiative or squander what advantages we do have on poorly thought out plans relying on uncertain and insufficient data..
But if by "solve" you mean;, can we keep the global temperature within certain parameters by controlling CO2? I doubt it. If in fact CO2 were the major cause of global warming as has been asserted by many, a few of whom actually are in full understanding of the predictive powers of climate modelling, (that is to say; not too much) then, and only maybe, could we do something, but even then only the most optimistic would think we could actually reverse the warming pattern considering how complex the causes likely are.
Never the less, there are methods to recapture CO2 which don't require that we stop the economic engine that the world's growing population demands to provide for its expectations (or if not they will destroy their natural resouces to get it). But even that will be in vain if we continue to pollute the world with truly toxic organic volatile gasses and particulates, heavy metals, soot and topsoil and fertilzer laden run-off and those problems, I think ,looms far more prominently that warming which is still historically within parameters that the planet has experienced before and managed to survive once known buffering and feed back mechanisms come into play that have throughout our climate history maintained this dynamic equillibrium for so long.
I don't know, I find it puzzling that people continue extolling the Kyoto protocols despite the track record to date of failure of the signatories of that protocol to achieve what they pledged to accomplish. The comment above that carbon emissions will begin to decrease when we have cost effective alternatives is logical and correct. Spending hundreds of billions to control carbon emissions with no return on the investment may solve the problem by plunging the world into a depression dwarfing the severity of the worldwide depression of the 1930s
Thanks for spamming your link on the environment forum. You want my opinion? Fine. Brace yourself you newbie blogger.
Canada, CAN'T change the planet's climate by passing laws. It can certainly ruin the economy though. Look, as oil gets more and more expensive, alternative technologies will develop organically in response to the market need. The last thing we need is for government bureaucrats to declare a particular technology as the holy grail and invest trillions of dollars in it, only to find out it's a bust. Cough cough ethanol. If you want the world to become less dependent on oil, then stop complaining about rising oil prices - the more expensive oil is, the more money will be invested in thousands of alternative technologies, and the quicker a few of those technologies will emerge as viable. But if the government pours trillions of dollars into the wrong technologies, the development of the viable technologies will not be appreciably quicker, and the economy will be harmed in the meantime.
The truth hurts eh.
I have also tried to make another point about AGW. There is no mechansim to reduce emissions that will create more expected wealth than it destroys. AGW in the expected range of outcomes just doesn’t cost that much, in comparison to what it would cost to radically abate emissions today.
The argument (or, more precisely, my argument) for technological investments is that they will destroy a small amount of economic value in the expected case in order to provide a hedge against very-much-larger than expected costs in a s cenario where we have grossly underestimated the economic impacts of emissions.
I don't see how the Canadian, or any other government for that matter, could disallow proper thought and logic. They could encourage or promote a particular line of thinking though educational curricula, media releases, or propaganda (via whatever channels) - but how exactly do they regulate peoples' thoughts on the environmental issues to the point of disallowing specific neuronal connections within the brain? Perhaps, it is through a voltage regulator in the central nervous system that increases the electroencephalographic (EEG) action-potential inhibiting the uptake of "envirotonins" (the hormone which controls the onset of environmentalism in adolescents).
But seriously, I don't see how any government could disallow "thoughts or logic" related to the interpretation of the environment (or anything else), short of telepathic control of the population or through brain implants. Are you suggesting that on the part of the Canadian authorities?
It is possible for governments to prevent or control the expression of thoughts and logic in relation to the environment, but the fact remains that there is no practical way that they could altogether disallow the thoughts from taking place. To the best of my knowledge, Canada is not usually regarded as a country where dissenting views are suppressed (or disallowed) in the manner you are suggesting. Further to this, even if it was the reality of their intentions, the very fact that you are posting these messages clearly demonstrates that their "policy" is not working.
Carbon emissions are good!
The 97 percent ratio might hold water as all flora and fauna on earth contribute to that fraction of GHG, only humans use 3% of carbon emission.When plants and algae grow, they inhale carbon dioxide and together with water and nutrients, that allows the plant (or alga) to grow. When these organisms decay, the release the carbon dioxide. That is why it is called the carbon cycle. For centuries, this system has been in balance. But with the ever-increasing fossil fuel consumption, deforestation, and expansive farming (contributing to an increase in methane, for the most part), we are adding more carbon dioxide to the system. The plants, oceans and marine organisms can't take it all in and hence we have rising concentrations of carbon dioxide.
You're too into the environment lol, then again you're in ERS!! Politics is all crap and talk all Canadian politics for that matter, just relax, who cares, if you ever work for government I'm sure you can figure something out!
Your friend,
-Chel
I'm really into this environment stuff Alex lol, might even work for Environment Canada, guess it's okay. I'm new to all this so anything that protects the environment is good!
me you and rooda should go to tims sometimes and have coffee, you're so funny in highscool.
-jothi
Post a Comment