If that target were, in fact, binding on Ottawa, then the obvious question to ask is: Why would Harper oppose a treaty that simply spells out that obligation?
The only logically answer:
The targeted cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in Harper's green plan are not binding on the government or the country. Rather, they are simply numbers chosen to convince Canadians that Harper is serious about fighting climate change.
I've heard various defences of the Harper approach, and none of them deal with the elemental point, instead working the margins to confuse. Baird said again today, that we have "absolute" targets, a full 20% by 2020, which puts Canada in a "leadership" role, by going "first". If any of those points were transparent and true, then all of the resistence falls away. No apologist can answer the above question head on, because there is an inherent logical contradiction that leaves nowhere to hide.
15 comments:
Well, there is a distinction to be made between domestic policy on emissions targets, and binding international targets which would require Canada to become responsible to the world community to achieve emissions caps set by other nations.
Canada is taking on an independent role in their own reduction of emissions, and this is the approach Stephen Harper is referring to.
An independent role that falls pathetically short of dealing with the problem of GHG, which Stephen Harper and John Baird and the rest of the Cons. know very well.
Not mentioned by Steve in that editorial is a point that Canada would like our "unique character" as a nation taken into account - which translated means because we're a northern country and it gets cold in most places, we should be able to develop the Alberta oilsands how we want, no matter what pollution they emit.
THAT is your independent role Stephen Harper is pursuing, Raphael. As the editorial says, Australians took action on climate change by turfing Howard - it'll be up to Canadians to turf Harper if they want "REAL" action, not just action claimed to be real that Harper and Baird spout about.
"Well, there is a distinction to be made between domestic policy on emissions targets, and binding international targets which would require Canada to become responsible to the world community to achieve emissions caps set by other nations."
What distinction? Baird says our targets go beyond what is talked about internationally, so what does it matter if we sign on? What you argue makes no sense.
On other point, Baird contradicts himself both ways. Baird argues that Canada shouldn't be forced to act alone, because other countries can then import goods cheaper, lacking the economic impact of tough emissions standards. If that is true, then why has Canada unilaterally decided to mandate "aggressive" absolute targets? How can you say we need the world to act, otherwise any initiative is doomed to "failure", while concurrently touting your tough as nails "action"? It's all just rubbish and posturing.
An independent role that falls pathetically short of dealing with the problem of GHG, which Stephen Harper and John Baird and the rest of the Cons. know very well.
Firstly, what "problem" with GHG? The ongoing research problem as to whether or not global warming is an issue which is imminent in or lives? Or the ongoing problem of whether or not reduction of emissions even helps?
Not mentioned by Steve in that editorial is a point that Canada would like our "unique character" as a nation taken into account - which translated means because we're a northern country and it gets cold in most places, we should be able to develop the Alberta oilsands how we want, no matter what pollution they emit.
No, I don't agree with that. Professor David Schindler who raised awareness about acid rain and pollutants in Lake Erie, is now questioning whether the oil sands project could threaten the ecology of the Athabaska River, something which affects many Canadians.
But contamination of a river source is a far more concrete problem than the confusing science of a climate change problem nobody has admitted can be stopped.
What distinction? Baird says our targets go beyond what is talked about internationally, so what does it matter if we sign on? What you argue makes no sense.
Superficially it sounds like a contradiction, but it is because we have raised ambitious targets that people want us to sign on internationally. The catch is that we don't want to enter into binding agreements internationally which would restrict such flexibility as is necessary in dealing with Canada's own unique environmental issues. It is far better to limit our targets to a domestic plan of action.
If there is a contradiction, it is not in not insisting on signing internationally binding targets, but in signing into nationally binding targets. I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives refuse to restrict themselves that way.
"The catch is that we don't want to enter into binding agreements internationally which would restrict such flexibility as is necessary in dealing with Canada's own unique environmental issues."
Raphael, the catch indeed. Again, if you take the Baird rhetoric as honest, then there is nothing to fear from international standards. Do you really believe there will be anything more than a 50% reduction by 2050, coming out of any international agreement? Baird argues 60-70%, which would mean he could still use the 1990 international base year and still achieve the targets. There is nothing to fear, unless of course you aren't sincere.
BTW, if we demand "flexibility", then we in fact are sabatoging the process, because this will allow others the same latitude, which translates into a failure, the targets meaningless. The targets will be a function of what the scientific community deems necessary to mitigate the damage, these aren't trade negotiations.
raphael said:
"Firstly, what "problem" with GHG?"
That pretty much sums it up does it not?
Before you can solve a problem you actually have to admit there is a problem. Raphael, Mr. Harper and Conservatives do not believe there is a problem. Therefore, they do not see the need for a solution.
Unfortunately, a significant number of Canadians disagree with their conclusions so they have to at least look busy.
Raphael, the research pointing to global warming and the human cause of it is pretty solid. It has been well researched and peer reviewed so it is hard to refute.
Whether the human species can stop it is an open question but we have to at least try. The Earth's ecosystem does not respond well to sudden changes. It tends to react in ways that cause major headaches to the lifeforms living on the planet at the time of the sudden change. So we should be trying to find ways to mitigate any of those effects as well as trying to find ways to keep those effects to whatever minimum is possible.
Or we can do what Mr. Harper and others like want to do. Continue down the same road and hope for the best.
Raphael I choose the former and I will not support a politician who chooses the latter.
The lefty rag, The National Post:
"The Harper government is opening the door to "wide-reaching" and "large scale" impacts to the earth's ecosystems because of its refusal to recognize a tipping point in the battle against global warming as it heads into major United Nations climate change summit that begins on Monday, warns a newly-released federal document.
Foreign Affairs officials who prepared the internal research paper suggested that the government could improve its environmental policies if it recognized the dangers associated with allowing human activity to contribute to warming the planet's average temperature by more than two degrees Celsius.
The background analysis was produced on May 1, 2007, a few weeks before Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended a summit of leaders from the world's eight largest economies in Germany...
Clare Demerse, a climate policy expert at the Pembina Institute, an environmental research group, said the internal government document demonstrates the weaknesses of Environment Minister John Baird's negotiating position at the UN conference in Bali, Indonesia.
"There is strong scientific evidence and a broad consensus that two degrees is a threshold that the world must agree not to cross," said Ms. Demerse. "Unfortunately, and despite advice from within the government in support of a similar temperature limit, Minister Baird has never explained what he considers to be dangerous climate change."
But your statements are contradictory. You don't know whether humans can effect a change back to earlier recorded conditions of planetary temperatures, but you're willing to try. How will you know if it's working? If it gets hotter, does that mean it didn't work? Or it did but it didn't matter? If it gets cooler, does that mean you were right? Or wrong? Wouldn't you rather understand the science before you go making changes to our lives?
Where I would begin is prudent environmental measures which would have a reciprocal effect on GHG. Air quality and pollution would be a good start, with restrictions and environmental controls in place for industry.
"But your statements are contradictory. You don't know whether humans can effect a change back to earlier recorded conditions of planetary temperatures, but you're willing to try. How will you know if it's working? If it gets hotter, does that mean it didn't work? Or it did but it didn't matter? If it gets cooler, does that mean you were right? Or wrong? Wouldn't you rather understand the science before you go making changes to our lives?"
The people that "understand the science" tell us that it isn't too late, if we act now. I haven't a clue how you conclude I am contradictory, other than the fact you conveniently pickup the reference to Baird. If you are waiting for all the answers, then it is a lost cause, that is for certain.
Sorry, I was talking to ottlib. It seemed contradictory of him to admit to admit he doesn't know if we can make any effect whatsoever, but is willing to try. I would prefer to be making decisions based on irrefutable evidence that the action will be able to limit further climate change. Otherwise the reasoning could be specious depending on if it snows in Toronto, or there's a heat wave in July.
Having said all that I think the time for better environmental measures from the conservatives is reaching a due date.
It's impossible to realize a 20% cut by 2020 without caps. "Intensity-based" emission targets make the notion of binding targets pure sophistry. It's so disingenuous as to cross over into fraudulent.
raphael
My bad.
mound
"It's so disingenuous as to cross over into fraudulent."
When you try to reconcile the rhetoric with the independent analysis, fraud is the first word that comes to mind.
From today's National Post (excerpt):
Foreign Affairs documents warned Harper on climate change
Mike DeSouza, CanWest News Service
Published: Sunday, December 02, 2007
The Harper government is opening the door to "wide-reaching" and "large scale" impacts to the earth's ecosystems because of its refusal to recognize a tipping point in the battle against global warming as it heads into major United Nations climate change summit that begins on Monday, warns a newly-released federal document.
Foreign Affairs officials who prepared the internal research paper suggested that the government could improve its environmental policies if it recognized the dangers associated with allowing human activity to contribute to warming the planet's average temperature by more than two degrees Celsius.
"The scientific uncertainty surrounding the temperature increase thresholds that would trigger global scale impacts (i.e., slowing of the North Atlantic Ocean currents, collapse of Greenland and/or West Antarctic ice sheets), highlights the merits of a precautionary approach," reads the document that was released to the Pembina Institute following an access to information request. "Some recent studies suggest that these wide-reaching, large-scale impacts could be triggered by a temperature increase as low as one degree Celsius (to) two degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels."
The background analysis was produced on May 1, 2007, a few weeks before Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended a summit of leaders from the world's eight largest economies in Germany where the European Union countries were calling for a new climate treaty that would require targets and policies to avoid crossing the two degree threshold.
....hmmm......
Post a Comment