Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the Commonwealth's original climate-change plan would have meant a doubling of greenhouse emissions over the next 50 years.
Harper told the House of Commons that is one reason why Canada blocked an agreement last weekend in Uganda, which would have seen the organization set binding targets for reductions.
It's unclear what scientific studies Harper used to make the statement, but he says it would have been irresponsible to agree to a deal that would have forced some countries, but not all, to cut emissions.
Harper elevates a simple statement into an agreement, in a desperate attempt to distract from his failure. There were no negotiations to hammer out an arrangement at the Commonwealth Summit, the communique was just a declaration of intent. Harper turns the question into something more to justify his resistance. That aside, according to John Baird, Canada has already accepted the original statement that Harper panned:
Canada believes we have an important leadership role to play. Leadership means going first. That is why we have set aggressive targets: a 20% absolute reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 and up to 60% and 70% by 2050
The Baird argument, Canada has already accepted binding targets, which sets an example by going "first". I believe the original statement simply said that binding targets must be endorsed by the developed world. That is in complete agreement with Baird's logic that Canada has gone first, to show leadership and bring others aboard. There seems to be tension between the rhetoric and the action.
Where Harper comes up with his "doubling of GHG's" in 50 years is curious. It would be noteworthy if Harper can cite the scientific underpinning for this claim, because he seems to ignore all the other scientific opinion that has universally panned his "Made In Canada" mirage. Speaking of dissent, the Harper climate approach is going over like a drunk at a MADD rally in Quebec.
The UN doesn't like it much either.figrfk
Stephen Harper had a brutal weekend from a political standpoint.
His "standing up" to the Commonwealth was not spun by the media in a positive manner. Instead it was spun as him being obstructionist on the most important issue facing the human species.
As well, the Australian election was spun in a very negative way from his standpoint. The media drew parallels between Mr. Howard's environmental policies, how they effected the outcome of that election and the near identical nature of Mr. Harper's environmental policies. Then they began asking questions as to whether Mr. Harper would meet the same fate.
No government politician likes it when the chattering classes begin to question the electability of their party.
Even many of his allies in the media were not as kind as they could have expected to be.
So now he is engaged in damage control. He realizes he made a political blunder and he is now attempting fix some of the damage.
And the general public won't notice this, but Baird's performance in QP on Monday was less than stellar. On one or two questions, he can get away with his thin responses, but the litany of attacks left him repeating himself, to the point of tiring.
It's funny: I'm actually finding that the sheer amount of deception and inconsistency from the government makes it hard to post about it. I would literally have to post a "Deception of the Day" post almost every day.
I might start doing that.
"I'm actually finding that the sheer amount of deception and inconsistency from the government makes it hard to post about it. I would literally have to post a "Deception of the Day" post almost every day."
They certainly give you a lot of material, don't they? :)
I am totally bewildered by your blindness. You said:
"...Harper elevates a simple statement into an agreement, in a desperate attempt to distract from his failure..."
Harper moved many of the Commonwealth countries to his position. How is that a failure?
If you mean a "failure" of PR, than I think he is getting use to all the negative spin from the media and the outrageous comments by the likes of May and Dion.
May ties his can to Chamberlain. Dion repeatedly uses the word "sabotage". Don't these people realize they sound exactly like zealots?
Why doesn't the media bluntly ask them to put up or shut up?
e.g. "M. Dion you have accused Stephen Harper of sabotaging the world's climate change conferences. Do you have any proof that he is doing this, or are you just using inflammatory rhetoric so that people catch the sound bite?"
"If you have no proof, please go try and convince some other media person that you are not just some wild eyed fanatic"
...are quotes I hope to see sometime.
In my view, Harper's position in Kamapala was imminently defensible. Yes politically he was drawn and quartered by the media and the other political sharks circling in the water.
If Canada's position is reinforced in Bali, I hope May, Dion, Layton, the ENGOs, and the media have the courage to give kudo's. Although I already know it is a baseless hope.
Not only will 'GHG' double by 2050 under Kyoto, it has been shown that the Kyoto Accord caused cancer in rats and small children.
Won't someone think of the children?
Good Lord, this must be a variant of the Chewbacca Defence...
Was that direct contact with the Kyoto Accord, or second-hand? Just for clarification.
"Harper moved many of the Commonwealth countries to his position. How is that a failure?"
Look up "watered down", and get back to me. Blindness is an interesting reference, since you can provide no secondary support for Harper's claims, outside of the Conservative parrot class.
Post a Comment