A draft climate plan being considered by the federal government would weaken the long-term goal for cutting greenhouse emissions from what was announced by former environment minister Rona Ambrose last October.
Under the federal draft plan, marked secret and dated April 13, the government would undertake to cut emissions 45 to 65 per cent from 2006 levels by 2050.
Ambrose's plan, in the original version of the Clean Air Act, used an earlier base year when emissions were lower to calculate cuts. That plan would have cut emissions 45 to 65 per cent from 2003.
Since emissions have risen significantly since 2003, the shift in base year results in a less stringent target.
Environmentalist say the Conservative draft plan doesn't go nearly far enough.
"You have a target that wasn't strong enough to begin with and they've weakened it even more and they think Canadians won't care," said Louise Comeau of the Sage Centre, an environmental think tank.
"We're not even close to what scientists are saying is needed."
Unprincipled, political opportunist, anti-democratic, Elizabeth May briefly leaves the backroom and comments:
"We need to constantly pay attention to the base year," said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May at a news conference Tuesday.
"They have actually weakened the target Madame Ambrose announced last fall with the Clean Air Act, which is actually a target for a shrinking Great Lakes, disappearing Arctic ice, storms on our coasts and a dust bowl on our prairies"
Staggering. Who knew, Rona Ambrose, relative trailblazer. Maybe we do need an election?
H/T Woman At Mile 0
9 comments:
My advise to the Liberals is they'd better speed up their nomination process for the ridings, because if the Conservatives want to fall on this plan, with the tightening poll #'s.. I'd be happy to accommodate them. I can't believe they'd have the gall to weaken the original CAA. There MUST be a catch somewhere in this that they can say they've toughened things up.
"There MUST be a catch somewhere in this that they can say they've toughened things up."
It looks like they will throw money at eco this and eco that, so it's important that people pay attention to the target details, like above, and the intensity targets, which are a complete sham.
I'm really surprised, so far all the leaks show they still don't get it. I think they've miscalculated again, if this stuff is accurate. It might be particularly pointed when you have all the opposition parties proposing a parallel plan.
They may be leaking this to lower expectations.. and then release something better so as to try and get everyone mildly surprised.
As you say, intensity targets is still a killer regardless of what they release.
"They may be leaking this to lower expectations.. and then release something better so as to try and get everyone mildly surprised."
I hadn't thought of that. There does seem to be quite a few leaks, which is uncharacteristic for this controlling bunch.
Anytime the Conservatives leak anything I assume that it was done on purpose until I have proof otherwise. In this case I think it's like Scott said that they're trying to lower expectations so that people don't think the legislation they do come out with is complete crap - which it will be.
Whooee! Okay, I'm all confuddled. I thought they was gonna get together with some Grits an' Dippers to re-draft the rejected CAA. I never heardtell who was on that committee. You fellers know?
If Harpoon tries with another dumbass scam green bill 6 months after the last one was panned, he's provin' that green stuff means nuthin' to him an' stallin' is the tactic he's chosen to deal with treehuggin' socialists who wanna give away Canada's wealth to lazyass Africans.
With Harpoon, it's all smoke an' mirrors an' style over substance. In my mornin' Brantford Suppositor, they had a big story on how King Steve's got this here make-up artist who travels with him whenever he might get on the TV. Michelle Muntean's her name an' disguisin' Harper's her game.
I reckon it's time to see what's under the green greasepaint.
JimBobby
Steve,
Can you send me your email address?
mfrancn228 AT rogers.com
Hi Mark:
It's on the site, under "Contact Me" :)
I'd guess the "leak" was intentional. Maybe it was designed to get the CPC's opponents all frothy and up in arms, so that the CPC could later say "oh, you sillies, that's not our plan. What on earth made you think that was our plan? THIS is our plan..."
This would make subsequent criticism of the actual plan look somewhat less genuine and probably a little muted, on top of which the critics would still be wearing a bit of egg on their faces from the false start.
This would only be effective if the leak were swallowed hook line and sinker, which I think has not happened.
Again, I'm just guessing here and I'm not an expert.
Post a Comment