I cry foul, that is clearly an old depiction of Harper rolling out the Clean Air Act. Or was it from the last election, when Harper outlined the Tory environmental agenda?
Of note, today, for the first time, I heard a Conservative counter the "ruin the economy" argument that is the convenient crutch for nothingness. John Baird actually articulated a forward thought:
"We don't want to be left out of the new economy. This debate on climate change can real SPUR GROWTH in the new economy"
Actual economic opportunity, as opposed to the looming depression. Who knew? Will Harper approve of such freelancing, that contradicts the sky is falling arguments?
4 comments:
Steve,
So it's the Conservatives forwarding the usual "sky is falling" arguments now, is it?
Here's a question for all the Dionistas out there: if tackling climate change was such a no-brainer, if it was so easily done with existing legislation, and if it could not only reduce "megatons of emissions" but make us all "megatons of money", why wasn't it something that the Liberals did during the deficit cutting years.
I know it's old hat to bring up the Liberals dereliction on the environment, and I know you personally didn't vote for the Liberals last election on the very issue, but if we're going to believe Dion's rhetoric that meeting the Kyoto targets in such a short period of time will be good for the economy ("megatons of money!!!") then what exactly was holding us back all these years?
Surely if it was the economic bonanza Dion would have it, Liberal majority governments would have brought in the regulations in a second, especially considering that every year we ignore this "green technology", is another year that our European competitors get a leg up on us.
The question should be, how could the deficit cutting Liberals afford not to invest in green technologies. However did our economy survive without them?
olaf
You are arguing a different point. I'm speaking to fear-mongering that people engage in when anyone suggest hard caps or a carbon tax, Kyoto or Dion is irrelevant here. Many conservatives argue if we move too fast, we will do massive damage to our economy, Baird's admission suggests a more balanced scenario.
BTW, I will never defend the Liberal failure on the environment, about all I can say is they started to clue in at the end, whatever that means.
Steve,
You are arguing a different point.
I'm well aware. I just... couldn't... help... myself...
Many conservatives argue if we move too fast, we will do massive damage to our economy, Baird's admission suggests a more balanced scenario.
True... he must have missed the memo.
BTW, I will never defend the Liberal failure on the environment, about all I can say is they started to clue in at the end, whatever that means.
True enough, and there is no reason why you should have to. I guess I'm just trying to show why Dion's suggestion that implementing Kyoto will be a net positive for the environment AND the economy doesn't pass the laugh test. Surely, if it was so good for the economy, it would have been done by now, is all.
But you're right, that has absolutely nothing to do with this post, it's just something that I've been thinking about, and since I don't have my own soapbox I thought I'd co-opt yours. Wait a second.. I DO have my own soapbox... so I have no excuse as it turns out, other than to perturb some of your more loyal Liberals...
I’m a Liberal and I strongly oppose provisions in Kyoto that call for targets to be met by 2012. In fact, I would scrap our support for the treaty all together.
However, I strongly support the idea of a Carbon tax (which is being advocated by no one except the Green's yet it is a solution that has been endorsed by high profile economists (on the right and left ie. Mankiw) and prominent activists around the world).
I think we need to break the link that automatically equates supporting Kyoto to making progress on the global warming front.
A good comprehensive plan that follows the targets laid out by Campbell and the terminator, combined with innovative techniques that go beyond just relying on ineffective subsidies and regulations (Which is what Dion’s project green plan was all about)is the way to go.
It is time to go beyond what is essentially a third world development aid treaty Yes, we can prosper if we move ahead in transforming our society into a sustainable one. No, we don’t need Kyoto to do that.
Post a Comment