Tories ending climate change programs
Sat, 2006-04-01 12:05
#1
Tories ending climate change programs
Sat, 2006-04-01 12:05
#2
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060331.wxchallenge0... stops funding One Tonne Challenge[/url]
quote:
The new Conservative government in Ottawa has abruptly stopped funding groups across the country that have been promoting the One Tonne Challenge, the quirky program to persuade Canadians to do their bit to help the environment by cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.The Conservatives are also reviewing about 100 other climate-change programs set up by the previous Liberal government.
What a surprise here.
Sat, 2006-04-01 15:20
#3
Just in
Conservative government to create own one tonne challenge.
How to spin one tonne of bullshit onto an ever gullible public and win a majority government next election.
Sat, 2006-04-01 16:27
#4
I do believe the absence of the One Tonne Challenge will have absolutely zero effect on Canada's GHG emmissions. That program was a load anyway. The key is, they aren't going to bother implementing any GHG legislation, and will likely try to pull out of Kyoto. We need to dump these jerks.
Sat, 2006-04-01 21:55
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Debra:
[b]Just inConservative government to create own one tonne challenge.
How to spin one tonne of bullshit onto an ever gullible public and win a majority government next election.[/b]
Funny how the public isn't "gullible" when they vote NDP though, eh?
Wed, 2006-04-05 22:28
#6
Boom Boom
Good coverage of this and a related story on The National tonight. Astonishing how many environmental groups got their funding cut today, in addition to the One Tonne Challenge. Jack was furious.
Wed, 2006-04-05 23:54
#7
Furious perhaps, but with the lovely Rona at the helm lobbying for Alberta, hardly surprised.
Wed, 2006-04-05 23:54
#8
Blame it all on Rick Mercer. He is the spokesman for the campaign. He mocks neo and old cons (well he mocks everyone but the fundies have no sense of humour). Ergo the program gets cut.
Thu, 2006-04-06 01:12
#9
This is brutal. 40% of the budget, including science and information offices. I doubt he's done yet though, he's going to pull a George Bush but try to do it without anybody noticing.
Thu, 2006-04-06 02:43
#10
Hmmm. This doesn't seem too clever. Canadians are becoming more environmentalist with every generation. Unless this is allowed to fly under the radar, it seems a poor strategy for moving into majority territory.
Thu, 2006-04-06 03:34
#11
Boom Boom
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/05/climate-change060405.... plan cuts to climate change programs[/url]
Forty per cent of this year's budget for climate change programs has been slashed from the departments of Natural Resources and Environment , CBC News has learned.
The cuts include the much-advertised One Tonne Challenge, 40 public information offices across the country and several scientific and research programs on climate change.
"If it's not in the taxpayers' interest to fund programs that are not effective, then we are not going to," said Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.
- snip -
"We will lose researchers, we will lose funding partners, we will lose a number of industries that have been looking at opportunities to move to, for example, new energy sources," said Layzell.
Environmental groups are furious at the cuts, pointing out the longer Canada takes to form a climate change plan the less likely Canada will keep its Kyoto promises.
"We're the only country that's ratified Kyoto that's cutting back on its spending on climate change," said John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada.
The government said it will come up with its own new climate change plan within the next few months.
- 30 -
What an ignorant dick Lunn is. If the bottom line for the Cons is effectiveness and results, then probably they will cut funds to cancer and heart disease researchers, too. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 06 April 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Thu, 2006-04-06 08:18
#12
quote:
The Harper government has begun disassembling Canada's Climate Change Program. All climate change programs announced in Action Plan 2000 have not been renewed and Natural Resources Canada has begun laying off staff. Included in the cuts is the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CIARN). “Apparently, the federal government has launched a stealth campaign against action on climate change,” said John Bennett, Senior Policy Advisor
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/in_cahoots.shtml?x=48834]Sierra Club of Canada[/url]
Thu, 2006-04-06 10:58
#13
Frustrated Mess
quote:
it seems a poor strategy for moving into majority territory
You would think, but the problem is the strategists in the opposition parties are no more informed on nor committed to fighting climate change then the Harpies. So what is the risk?
The Harpies were weak and without any real environmental platform in the last election, yet, they got a free ride from the NDP and the Liberals. The reason being, Layton, for example, was stumping about talking about pollution like it was 1977.
The opposition, I am afraid, just doesn't get it. I would even hazard a guess that the Harpies get even more but just don't give a shit because their corporate backers tell them thar's gold in that thar melt. Which is true. But they are reaching into a deep, dark well to try and get something shiny and when they fall in we all go with them.
Thu, 2006-04-06 11:09
#14
Boom Boom
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
You would think, but the problem is the strategists in the opposition parties are no more informed on nor committed to fighting climate change then the Harpies. So what is the risk?
-
Huh? The former government (Liberals) funded all these programs that were just chopped by the Conservatives.
Thu, 2006-04-06 21:58
#15
quote:
You would think, but the problem is the strategists in the opposition parties are no more informed on nor committed to fighting climate change then the Harpies. So what is the risk?The Harpies were weak and without any real environmental platform in the last election, yet, they got a free ride from the NDP and the Liberals. The reason being, Layton, for example, was stumping about talking about pollution like it was 1977.
We could have emphasized environmental issues more. But we did call for a 25 percent reduction in GHGs from 1990 levels by 2020. And unlike the Liberals we have a strategy to get at least partway there. Considering global warming wasn't talked about much in 1977 I fail to see what the reference is.
Fri, 2006-04-07 00:44
#16
Whether all of these programs will have an effect on CO2 emmissions or not (they will, at least in terms of public awareness) I'm much, much more worried about the odds of other environmental programs surviving.
This almost seems to be a move to get rid of as many climate change programs as possible, without any public backlash. It almost seems to be a move to enable the government to cut environmental programs again, without public backlash. How many more programs are going to be cut by Harper over the course of his government?
This is a deep wound, but it's pretty minor considering he could chop the whole arm off.
Fri, 2006-04-07 05:25
#17
quote:
You would think, but the problem is the strategists in the opposition parties are no more informed on nor committed to fighting climate change then the Harpies. So what is the risk?
Huh? I'm talking about optics here. There's only one party cutting 40% of the budget of climate change programs. Who cares what the others are doing? Anyone who agrees with this kind of thing is probably already voting Conservative. When Canadians pick up the paper and see this, do you really think there'll be no reaction? No hardening of resistence to the idea of a Con majority? No group of voters, small yet crucial, thinking, "Oh no, I made a terrible mistake voting for the Conservative party. They don't care about the environment."?
I can't see it, but hey, I've been wrong before.
Fri, 2006-04-07 23:40
#18
Boom Boom
Rona Ambrose in QP responded to a planted question from someone in the Con caucus, something like "how much did the Envioronment Conference (the one chaired by Dion last year) cost and how many tons of greenhouse gas emissions did it stop?" Fuck. What a bunch of assholes these Cons are. Ambrose said the Conference cost $44million of taxpayer's money and didn't stop any emissions whatsoever.
She went on yesterday I think it was in QP and said the Cons will replace the current funding with funding on programs that will actually be transparent so taxpayers can see what they're getting for their money. Ambrose pisses me off. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2006-04-18 16:28
#19
quote:
Originally posted by JPG:
[b]I do believe the absence of the One Tonne Challenge will have absolutely zero effect on Canada's GHG emmissions. That program was a load anyway. The key is, they aren't going to bother implementing any GHG legislation, and will likely try to pull out of Kyoto. We need to dump these jerks.[/b]
And do you seriously thing that any of these programs, even if implemented, would change future temperatures by so much as one tenth of one centigrade? Whoever designed these programs has an incredibly good sense of humour.
Tue, 2006-04-18 16:35
#20
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Huh? The former government (Liberals) funded all these programs that were just chopped by the Conservatives.
Yeah, but in truth, as much as they might have raised awareness, on the real nuts and bolts the Liberals were as committed to fighting climate change as Harper is to real transparence in government.
Fri, 2006-05-05 23:42
#21
Boom Boom
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/05/energuide05052006.htm... programs lose funding[/url]
Department of Finance officials are confirming that a whole new list of environmental programs are losing their funding as a result of this week's federal budget.
Among the best known is the Energuide program, in which Canadians who have their homes renovated to save energy can qualify for a federal grant of several thousand dollars.
About 300,000 people have used the program since its start in the late 1990s.
A home retrofitted under the program cuts its energy use by an average of 30 per cent.
But Energuide has had its budget slashed by $227 million over the next five years. Groups that run the program say it will be a shadow of its former self and a lot fewer people will be able to take advantage of it
There's also a similar Energuide program for low-income households. Its entire budget of more than $550 million is cut, meaning that program is now gone.
Four other environmental programs have lost most, or all, of their funding. They include everything from money to develop new kinds of renewable energy, to a program to help people switch to more efficient furnaces.
- snip -
Sat, 2006-05-06 02:05
#22
Boom Boom, you got there before me!
Shit. This is horrid for the environment (and us) but the blatant neo-con ideology --- [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
[b]There's also a similar Energuide program for low-income households. Its entire budget of more than $550 million is cut, meaning that program is now gone.[/b]
Classic hate the poor, I've got mine FUCK you and yours.
quote:
Four other environmental programs have lost most, or all, of their funding. They include everything from money to develop new kinds of renewable energy, to a program to help people switch to more efficient furnaces.
Idiots. Freakin' lost in the 50's can't see no horizon, long as the wealthy are happy utter freakin' morons.
Sat, 2006-05-06 14:35
#23
Boom Boom
In cutting off funding to all these established and useful environmental programs, the Cons say they will introduce their own programs. Bull plucky. Think about everything the Cons have done since getting into office - cut out the Kelowna Accord, Kyoto Accord (well it wasn't a perfect plan anyway), and now funding to some really great enviro programs. I can't help but get the feeling they're setting us up for some kind of neocon fascist universe with Emperor Harpoon at the helm. Fucking neocon bastards. Sooner the country wakes up from this neocon nightmare and throw dese bums out, the better. The best alternative scenario at this point would be a strong NDP balance-of-power situation.
Mon, 2006-05-08 23:05
#24
Just keep a record of all of this.
Look, climate change is real. There is no scientific debate - climate science follows the most rigorous peer review process in existence, bar none. I'm not exaggerating either - a climate article has as many as 1000 reviewers before it sees the light of day.
THe deniers are those who benefit from inaction, or people paid by them.
Any political party, and particularly any governing party, that actively undermines, denies or otherwise blocks attempts to address and mitigate global warming will be a footnote in the history books 20 years from now.
Every thing they do, keep track of it. Dates, times, what they said to whom, what they cut. The academic and scientific evidence is clear. Public opinion is clear.
A time will come, probably in the next few years, when some major climate induced disaster will happen right here in Canada. That will be the end of the Conservative party, if they keep doing what they are doing now.
I just wish it didn't take a major disaster to get people angry.
Tue, 2006-05-09 00:04
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]Sooner the country wakes up from this neocon nightmare and throw dese bums out, the better. The best alternative scenario at this point would be a strong NDP balance-of-power situation.[/b]
What do you mean?
Tue, 2006-05-09 00:06
#26
Will a major disaster make people angry enough? The only angry people in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina are those living in its wreckage. They don't seem to have much power to change anything, and those who do are not.
oh, and btw, I won the one tonne challenge.
[ 09 May 2006: Message edited by: zak4amnesty ]
Tue, 2006-05-09 00:20
#27
[url=http://www.realclimate.org/]RealClimate[/url] is a great source of technical information; including reviews of some recent books on climate change.
They also talk about the IPCC draft that the US gov't leaked before its time; here's Comment No.4 in the discussion:
quote:
This is a little off topic but how is the IPCC related to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)? Does the UNFCCC have any input on IPCC reports? The reason I ask this question is that Rona Ambrose, Canada's new Minister of the Environment, is now the President of the UNFCCC, until a new country is chosen to hold the presidency in November. She and the new Canadian government are very hostile to climate science. (Let's just say Exxon likes this government) Would they have any ability to impact the new IPCC report?[Response:There is no official connection. As far as I understand, the Canadian Govt. has input as at this review stage and in finalising the summary for policy makers but won't have any special weight. - gavin]
Comment by PeterW — 5 May 2006 @ 4:16 pm
[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/ipcc-draft-no-comm... draft: No comment.[/url]
Oh, and zak4, way to go on the one tonne challenge. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 09 May 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]
Tue, 2006-05-09 01:09
#28
quote:
Originally posted by zak4amnesty:
Will a major disaster make people angry enough? The only angry people in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina are those living in its wreckage. They don't seem to have much power to change anything, and those who do are not.
Well, wasn't Katrina caused by God's wrath at gays? Or the Supreme Court's decision against the 10 commandments in lower courts? Or, no wait, it was the drunken debauchery of Mardi Gras. I heard it was something like that.
quote:
Originally posted by zak4amnesty:
oh, and btw, I won the one tonne challenge.
Bull cwap. I would have known if that were the case. Just tonight via personal e-mail I learned:
quote:
Important Notice to One-Tonne Challenge Bulletin Subscribers
As the Government of Canada's One-Tonne Challenge (OTC) program has been discontinued, the OTC e-bulletin will no longer be published. In its place, we are pleased to offer you the opportunity to subscribe to Envirozine, Environment Canada's online newsmagazine. Envirozine features articles on subjects ranging from air quality to water, to weather and wildlife. Subscribe this month and discover an array of tips and scientific facts on our environment.
I have it from good inside sources that the oiligarchs in Alberduh "won" the challenge.
Tue, 2006-05-09 02:09
#29
Well, if you find my claim about the one tonne challenge challenging, try this one on for size. I went to Bourbon Street last week and didnae drink! I swear.... I even said a prayer.... Gawd, please help the people of the ninth district, wherever they are, and please help that guy with pee on his pants, snot on his nose, and barf on his shirt pass on the far side of the street.
I gave up my car 15 months ago and have not missed it at all. In fact, my quality of life has improved significantly.
Tue, 2006-05-09 14:22
#30
I won the one ton challenge about 8 years ago when I sold my last car. Far as I can tell, it just opened up space for others to buy more cars.
The one ton challenge was fundamentally flawed - it was focused on individual behaviour. That's only a part of the equation - to effect real change requires regulation. The Liberals, pathetically, shied away from anything of the sort.
I'm not sad to see the ineffectual programs promoted by the Liberals get dropped, though it affects our household personally (arborwoman was working on one of them). I'm sad to see nothing that's going to make a scrap of difference in their place.
I'd say that the destruction of Katrina was the turning point for GWB. That was when his approval ratings started sinking, and they haven't stopped yet. His disapproval ratings have risen to 65%. Harper could learn something from that, but he won't.
Tue, 2006-05-09 17:24
#31
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
[b]
I'd say that the destruction of Katrina was the turning point for GWB. That was when his approval ratings started sinking, and they haven't stopped yet. His disapproval ratings have risen to 65%. Harper could learn something from that, but he won't.[/b]
since we are blueskying a disaster, imagine this:
its well documented that the glaciers in AB/BC Rockies are shrinking, some say they have lost 25% of their mass this past century.
over the past 20-30 years, demands on this water have increased thanks to:
Increased agricultural irrigation
More water for more ranching and larger herds
And now, needs of the oilsands
Imagine a drought in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Not that unusual. Now suppose its a hig one.
Ruined crops, dying herds and a lot of lost investment, destroying people's savinsg, pensions and what not. It would painful for a lot of people and yeah, it would make Harper and Co. appear rather foolish.
Unfortunatly, it would be a difficult situation to "fix".
Tue, 2006-05-09 18:08
#32
Don't forget more forest fires which are happening now. [url=http://www.cbc.ca/calgary/story/cal-fires20060427.html]CBC report:[/url]
quote:
Forest-fire season has arrived with a vengeance in Alberta – the result of a combination of above average temperatures and strong winds, along with unusually low humidity.The fire hazard is now in the extreme range across most of the province, say fire officials...
Tue, 2006-05-09 19:07
#33
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]What do you mean?[/b]
What do you think I mean? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Seriously, I think if we go back a few years (or even to the last Liberal budget which had NDP input) we'll see some of the best legislation put forward was from minority Liberals with a strong NDP balance of power.
Thu, 2006-05-11 17:32
#34
Hey Zak,
We're all wondering what happened to you at the Blueroot forum.
Thu, 2006-05-11 17:43
#35
Frustrated Mess
Honestly, I think we are past the tipping point. The human species has dominated the planet for the past 10,000 years, and we our bringing our own time to a close very rapidly. My advice would be don't have children and find a place to weather the storm into your old age. I am taking my own advice, for once.
Thu, 2006-05-11 17:50
#36
Don't worry, the rapture is coming any time soon. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2006-05-11 18:35
#37
Give up if you want, but I see that as a way of avoiding responsibility. Since I've already had a child, I feel a strong obligation to ensure that his future is healthy and happy. It might not be rich, but that's ok.
Thu, 2006-05-11 18:50
#38
Frustrated Mess
It isn't a question of giving up. It is a question of what is. And there is nothing religious about it althoug I appreciate for some sarcasm is all that is ever available in terms of a response to a serious issue.
The truth is we have likely passed the tipping point. And whether we have or not denial reins supreme on the issue.
For those for whom denial is merely the greatest escape, the options must be explored. And the only remaining option is acceptance. Even if there was something to be done, no one is prepared to do it.
For heavens sake, in Britain, where climate change is acknowledged and the reprecussions catastrophic, they are doing as little as possible and wouldn't even consider reducing air travel.
And here? Not even a feel-good program.
We are cooked. Literally.
Fri, 2006-05-12 12:50
#39
quote:
The truth is we have likely passed the tipping point. And whether we have or not denial reins supreme on the issue.
The fact is that there are a number of tipping points. We are committed to a certain amount of climate change, which will have to be adapted to. But without action to reduce emissions, it will be impossible to stablize Carbon Dioxide concentrations at prudent levels (say 560 ppm).
Kyoto targets will not be met without effort, and the Conservatives seem to have given up even the pretense of trying. The claim is that the climate change programs were not cost effective. It will be interesting to see if they replace them with anything. The truth is though that no emission reductions will occur without controlling oil sands development (the largest source of emissions growth), and I don't see that happening with the present governments in Ottawa and Alberta.
Fri, 2006-05-12 13:08
#40
Boom Boom
On QP this week, the Cons are under fire for apparently not following through with a previous agreement to help Ontario divest itself of coal-producing electric plants; their defense is that the Ontario govt. decided not to follow through on the idea anyway. Dunno if this has any traction, but coal-powered electricity is a major pollutant.
Side note: QP isn't fun anymore with these Conservative assholes in office.
Fri, 2006-05-12 13:29
#41
Frustrated Mess
quote:
The fact is that there are a number of tipping points. We are committed to a certain amount of climate change, which will have to be adapted to. But without action to reduce emissions, it will be impossible to stablize Carbon Dioxide concentrations at prudent levels (say 560 ppm).
It is currently at 370 ppm. At 560 ppm not only will civiliazation collapse probably we probably won't survive at all.
[img]http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/6.jpg[/img]
![http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/6.jpg[/img]](http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/6.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
I completely dispute the argument that we can adapt to some levels of climate change. What levels? How do we know when we've achieved those levels? Carbon Dioxide lasts for decades in the atmosphere. How many gigatons of CO2 and methane represent adaptable climate change and adapatable by whom? Who wins and who loses? At what point does weather variability completely disrupt our ability to farm. It has already and Darfur is a great example of how we are adapting our way to hell.
The only way that we have a chance is to immediately re-organize our societies to end the consumption of fossil fules and switch to renewables. It would be a major global undertaking.
But the fact is that on a societal basis we are oblivious to the changes taking place around us as are our politicians and the corporate media is spoonfedding our ignorance.
Put another way, a small minority of us are plugged into what is going on and what will we do about it? Bang our heads? Or plan to live our own lives as peacefully and joyfully as possible?
Fri, 2006-05-12 13:55
#42
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Canada's new Conservative government, which says the Kyoto protocol is too onerous, is suggesting the accord be softened and wants Canada to be given a break because it is a major energy producer.Ottawa's position was laid out in documents it submitted ahead of an international conference in Bonn next week on how to extend the protocol, the first stage of which expires in 2012. Canadian Environment Minister Rona Ambrose will chair the meeting of the working group.
Ambrose says Canada has no chance of meeting its Kyoto targets, which call for a 6 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2012. Canada's emissions are now 35 percent above the 1990 levels.
"The protocol must be more effective if it is to continue as a key instrument to address global climate change ... different types of commitments and longer term horizons should be considered," read Canada's submission to the conference. Ottawa released the paper late on Thursday.
[url=http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2... be effective the Kyoto targets should be ineffective ... HA!HA!HA Our environment minister is a global joke.[/url]
Sat, 2006-05-13 21:09
#43
Frustrated Mess
Not only are neo-cons liars, they are also just plain stupid:
quote:
Canada's bridges, sewers, roads and buildings are at risk of failure because of climate change over the next 50 years, says a new study by Environment Canada.Infrastructure worth $5 trillion is designed on the assumption that past extremes will represent future conditions, but this assumption is no longer valid, says the study released Thursday.
[url=http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/05/11/1575427-cp.html]So $5 trillion is at risk? It was the oil companies that elected Harpercrite.[/url]
Sun, 2006-05-14 02:07
#44
quote:
It is currently at 370 ppm. At 560 ppm not only will civiliazation collapse probably we probably won't survive at all.
You may be right. But there is still enough uncertainty to say there is a chance that civilization will survive. On the other hand there are some extreme scenarios possible that will make it difficult for humans to survive, particularly if we can't stablize the atmosphere at or below 560 ppm.
quote:
I completely dispute the argument that we can adapt to some levels of climate change. What levels? How do we know when we've achieved those levels? Carbon Dioxide lasts for decades in the atmosphere. How many gigatons of CO2 and methane represent adaptable climate change and adapatable by whom? Who wins and who loses? At what point does weather variability completely disrupt our ability to farm. It has already and Darfur is a great example of how we are adapting our way to hell.
We have already adapted to climate change and continue to adapt. But the question of winners (if there are any) and losers and how much climate change we can adapt to is certainly valid, particularly on an overpopulated planet with nuclear weapons.
[/QUOTE]
The only way that we have a chance is to immediately re-organize our societies to end the consumption of fossil fules and switch to renewables. It would be a major global undertaking.
[QUOTE]
It's not going to happen immediately, but that doesn't mean it's not worth the effort. And we may find that it will be possible to stablize the atmosphere at a lower level. Or not.
Sun, 2006-05-14 02:38
#45
We are already committed to some climate change because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, so we must both adapt to and limit climate change by stabilizing the atmosphere. Whether we can is an open question, but voluntary approaches are ridiculous. The fact that we are an "energy intensive" economy not only offers considerably more opportunities for energy efficiency, but also begs the question of the purpose of economies and economic policy.
Tue, 2006-05-16 15:40
#46
Frustrated Mess
quote:
An efficiency move or just more penny-wise, pound-foolishness?As part of an ongoing effort to obliterate any trace of the former Liberal regime, the Conservative government is cancelling the EnerGuide for Houses program.
When contacted by reporters, Natural Resources Canada -- which administers the program -- referred calls to Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, who didn't return phone calls Friday.
But on Thursday, Michael Fortier, the minister of Public Works and Government Services, the unelected senator from Montreal and former co-chair of Stephen Harper's leadership campaign and Tory federal election campaign, gave the bad news to EnerGuide contractors, like Sun Ridge Group of Saskatoon. Fortier's office directed Sun Ridge to "stop all pre-retrofit evaluations, effective May 13, 2006.''
[url=http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/business_agriculture/story.h... is as stupid does and Harper does stupid[/url]
Sun, 2006-05-21 22:48
#47
Boom Boom
[url=http://tinyurl.com/zcrmn]Ambrose under fire for abandoning and sandbagging Kyoto[/url]
- snip -
The Liberals, however, pointed to a leaked federal document that suggested the Canadian delegation had been instructed by Ottawa to oppose efforts to set more stringent targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The leaked material also suggested Canada could pull out of the UN climate-change process unless the United States and other major polluters agree to come onboard.
Brison considered that to be proof of Ambrose's "covert attempts to sabotage the development of a binding international consensus on global warming.
"This is not only outrageous, it is dangerously duplicitous," Brison said in a statement Saturday.
He called on Ambrose not only to bring the Canadian delegation home but also to resign her ministerial post.
NDP Leader Jack Layton also expressed consternation and appealed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to override Ambrose in her handling of the Bonn talks.
"We're not going to stand idly by in the NDP and watch Canada's environmental leadership be squandered," NDP Leader Jack Layton told Halifax radio station News 95.7.
"I urged Mr. Harper to engage on this. He of course didn't give me any specific commitments. He heard me out."
Tue, 2006-05-23 08:30
#48
quote:
Along with the fact that smoking causes cancer, few scientific cases have been more thoroughly documented than the case that burning fossil fuels causes climate change.And, despite a massive misinformation campaign led by oil giant Exxon, most Canadians understand that our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels is threatening the planet.
This creates a dilemma for Stephen Harper and his right-wing colleagues. They've long been close to the oil industry and, on its behalf, have opposed the Kyoto accord aimed at tackling climate change. But they want the public to believe they take the issue seriously.
So last week the Harper government sent Environment Minister Rona Ambrose to Bonn to chair an international meeting on climate change — a move that had all the sincerity of Libya sending a delegate to chair the UN Human Rights Commission.
Taking a page from the Bush administration — the ultimate friend of Big Oil — the Harper government has been advocating a “made-in-Canada” approach to climate change, based on “voluntary” reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=50066]Linda McQuaig[/url]
Tue, 2006-05-23 12:15
#49
Michelle:
quote:
And, despite a massive misinformation campaign led by oil giant Exxon, most Canadians understand that our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels is threatening the planet.
Given the frivolous attitude of many toward vehicle choice, on this very board, I have no such confidence.
Neither can we rely on government and a media "owned" by industry. Ultimately, both will have to be pushed by this medium - as long as we are able.
Tue, 2006-05-23 12:45
#50
quote:
Originally posted by skeptikool:
[b]Given the frivolous attitude of many toward vehicle choice, on this very board, I have no such confidence.[/b]
Oh people on this board and elsewhere understand the issue. It's just that they [i]need[/i] their car to get to work, or groceries or whatever. So fuck the planet, and bitch about the conservatives to make ourselves feel good while we go down in flames.
Tue, 2006-05-23 13:24
#51
Boom Boom
It's a big country, there are places where owning a car or truck is unavoidable. Here, in a very isolated territory, we also own ATVs and skidoos, because the roads outside the village get progressively worse until you reach the point where nothing but an offroader will do. Plus, the roads here are not cleared in winter, so there's no other alternative to every family owning and using a skidoo.
As I've said many times on this board, I can't see any justification for using SUVs or monster trucks in downtown urban core areas.