All this debate comes down to one point in my mind. Has a government every invested so much energy in ripping apart concepts and negativism, at the expense of actually doing something? Think about it, well into the second year of governing and we all still must endure the infinite Kyoto bashing, from the Minister that actually has the power. If I hear John Baird say the word "soon" one more time, I'm going to scream.
What if the Conservatives had actually focused on something positive from the onset? Listening to Baird deflect questions today in QP, with the usual Kyoto tirades, it begged the question- what is the point of reference, where is your plan to compare? Something vs "coming soon", the theoretical is better, but we haven't quite figured it out yet. That is the Tory message, has been from day one, except for the train wreck Clean Air Act. It would seem to me that any party that released such an abysmal piece of legislation after "consultations" and months of "work" doesn't really merit the moral high ground to trash something concrete.
Where is the plan? Why are you wasting time spewing fire and brimstone, when you have a plan that needs crafting? Get to work smart ass, and please, just STFU until you have an actual alternative.
15 comments:
What is Baird's numbers are right?
Are you willing to wreck the Canadian economy on your trust that Baird is wrong?
Tomm
It's a far bigger risk to assume Baird is right, Tomm.
You know, the economists, et al predicted an end of the world view when Mulroney pushed for eliminating the ozone layer (Elizabeth May was in his group of advisers at the time) - ah, we're still going strong aren't we.
Japan and EU Union don't appear to be devastated by using the Kyoto protocol do they?
Did Baird's economists figure in the cost of catasrophe funds, lives (healthcare), etc.????
Australia is now facing the worst draughts they've ever had (PM Howard is also a denier).
Wake up Canada !!!
Don Martin's article was great. He is a fair minded conservative columnist, unlike the many of he colleagues in the same paper.
Speaking of spin and hypocracy, read "Cerberus" today - about Taliban Jack and deals.
Interesting
"What is Baird's numbers are right?"
Baird numbers are wrong, even the economists admit they were limited to certain criteria, which has already been discredited as partial at best.
Tomm, what if the projections of the cost to the economy because of inaction are correct?
Canada entered into and signed the Kyoto Protocol in good faith. Whether you agreed with that decision or not is now irrelevent. It is a done deal. (Sort of like the Afghan mission extension the Conservatives have given us.)
As a respected member of the international community we have to make an honest and good faith effort to meet our commitments.
If we make that good faith effort and fail the international community will not hold it against us. If we do not make the effort, guaranteeing failure, the international community will hold it against us. A situation that is not in the best interests of a middle power like Canada.
So lets make the effort and see where it goes. If we fail, we fail.
The folks who developed the protocol did not envision or expect its signatories to destroy their economies to meet their commitments. That is why the Protocol is full of measures to assist the signatories to meet them.
So the government does not have to destroy the Canadian economy in attempting to meet our commitments. It just has to use a combination of the measures contained in the Protocol and made-in-Canada measures to put us on the road to achieving our commitments, keeping in mind the economic needs of Canadians.
If Canada does that we will be fine. If it does not then there will be consequences down the road.
ottlib
At the Nairobi meeting, other signature countries expressed sympathy for Canada's predicament. I took this opinion to mean that was some understanding if Canada failed to meet its targets. I guess the difference is trying, or throwing your hands up, as the Conservatives prefer.
I also recall Harper mentioning in one of his "Canada is back" speeches that the Conservatives would honor its commitments, particulary as it related to Afghanistan. It would seem to me that "honoring" would include an attempt to comply with a legal treaty that we have signed.
"I also recall Harper mentioning in one of his "Canada is back" speeches that the Conservatives would honor its commitments, particulary as it related to Afghanistan. It would seem to me that "honoring" would include an attempt to comply with a legal treaty that we have signed." Stve V 3:58 PM, April 20, 2007
Indeed, this is a point I have raised from time to time and never gotten a decent response to. Why is it that our word to one international institution cannot be broken no matter how many lives may be lost but it is fine to break not just our word on Kyoto but to break an international law which we signed onto and ratified by our Parliament which Kyoto has been since 2005 when enough countries ad ratified it? There is a fundamental contradiction of the same principle at work here, yet that doesn't appear to bother Harper and the CPCers now does it. Just goes to show yet again how little our word and national honour really means to Harper, it only matters to him as a political weapon and talking point and not in truth. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions here show his contempt far more than anything else for consistent principled thinking and governing, especially on something with as much international/global importance as Kyoto.
Yes the Conservatives are quick to throw out the "we must honour our commitments" line when talking about Afghanistan.
It certainly would be nice to hear that said about our Kyoto commitments.
Steve:
Canada is a respected member of the international community and it would be given the benefit of the doubt if we failed to meet our Kyoto requirements provided it attempted to meet them in good faith.
So there is no real need to harm the Canadian economy to meet our targets. Do what is necessary to get on the right path, if we fail to meet the targets it will not be a big deal. So long as we make the effort and achieve come progress Canada's international reputation will be intact. We do the opposite, as the Conservatives suggest, and our international reputation will be severely harmed. As I said before, not a situation that is in the interests of a middle power like Canada.
Th UN IPCC is set to release a report that claims that all countries can meet Kyoto with 'reasonable' costs incurred.
This is contrasted with Baird's dangerous nonsense in this article
Surprisingly the article is from CanWest, usually very pro-Harper and apparatchiks
ed, do you know when the report is coming out? I'm trying to gauge when Baird might come out with his report/plan.
Apparently ExxonMobile are the sponsors of Baird's study/plan.
David Akin, CTV - says on his blog that the report is a report by the U.S. Government and he has it on his site.
.....hmmmm
Steve,
Of course, then we are in agreement then. I'll believe your politican if you believe mine.
I am willing to accept the LPC numbers as a possibility, but only if you are willing to accept the Federal government projections as a possibility.
Sadly, you are not willing to go halfway and sadly I am risk averse.
Except for belief, you have nothing else to stand on. You sound like a Christian.
God bless Canada.
Tomm
"I am willing to accept the LPC numbers as a possibility, but only if you are willing to accept the Federal government projections as a possibility."
Tomm, please. You don't except anything the Liberals say. Now why would accept the government projections when they are clearly skewed from the onset?? Even your boy Don Martin exposes the ruse, which speaks to the ridiculous fear-mongering. In fact, it would seem the entire media has rejected the Conservatives doom and gloom premise. If the proposal was serious, you look at it, when it just pure propaganda, you reject and move on.
Post a Comment