I can't believe it - I agree with Jack Layton

[Table 5]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/...ton-green.html

I'm the last person to be an NDP supporter, but when it comes to the environment, I think they really are the only major party (not including Greens on this one) that truly realizes the urgency that is necessary on this front. The Conservative proposal that was tabled is an absolute farce....Canada should really be ashamed for such a lacklustre effort.

I've said it before, how a party responds to global warming and sustainability has now become my number one issue that would sway me in an election. I still would be hardpressed to support the NDP with my ballot, but after seeing what the PC's proposed....I'm pretty sure I know who i woudn't vote for.

[Red Mile Style]

Yay!

I love you Table 5!

[Frank the Tank]

The Conservative proposal made me embarassed to be a Canadian. Green all the way baby!

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

The Conservative proposal made me embarassed to be a Canadian. Green all the way baby!

Voted for them last time, most likely will again.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Voted for them last time, most likely will again.

Same here. Hopefully they'll actually get an MP or two elected this time around.

[metallicat]

It seems there has yet to be a good Canadian solution to global warming, because Kyoto was terrible as well.

[mykalberta]

So how much of GDP do you believe should go to combat global warming?

1,2,5%?

Are you willing to pay more income tax in order for it to happen?

Are you willing to have a liitle less quality health care and education or road maintenance to the tune of 1,2,5%

The problem with the environment and politics is that it simply isnt a yes no issue. No one, not Canadian Conservatives, Alberta One Party supporters, Republicans, Fox News Editors, not one is against the environment but most of the aforementioned believe that eventually science will figure out a way.

Its not enough to say Go Green or Go NDP cause they are the best on the environment - how would you implement that and are you willing to take 1,2,5% less off other services to see it to fruition?

If you have no numbers to bring then the point is useless.

MYK

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Voted for them last time, most likely will again.

Yup, me as well. Can't stand the lack of action towards the environment in this country. Drives me nuts.

[Red Mile Style]

Awwww man, if there's one party I hate, it's the Greens! Environmentally conscious my ass!

Boo!

I hate you Table5!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Same here. Hopefully they'll actually get an MP or two elected this time around.

Hopefully they will get invited to the debates next time too. Instead they invite the wackos from the Bloc which most of Canada can't even vote for.

EDIT: Also voted green last election.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

It seems there has yet to be a good Canadian solution to global warming, because Kyoto was terrible as well.

It seems to me there has to be a good Canadian desire first. All of the "solutions" that have been tabled by the PC's and Liberals have really lacked any sort of passion or true intention of making things happen....they were just tabled to try to appease people and make the issue go away.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

So how much of GDP do you believe should go to combat global warming?

1,2,5%?

Are you willing to pay more income tax in order for it to happen?

Are you willing to have a liitle less quality health care and education or road maintenance to the tune of 1,2,5%

The problem with the environment and politics is that it simply isnt a yes no issue. No one, not Canadian Conservatives, Alberta One Party supporters, Republicans, Fox News Editors, not one is against the environment but most of the aforementioned believe that eventually science will figure out a way.

Its not enough to say Go Green or Go NDP cause they are the best on the environment - how would you implement that and are you willing to take 1,2,5% less off other services to see it to fruition?

If you have no numbers to bring then the point is useless.

MYK

According to this report, the consequences on the economy will be devastating if more is not done on climate change now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/...global_warming

Britain issued a sweeping report Monday warning that the Earth faces a calamity on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression unless urgent action is taken.

The report said unabated climate change would eventually cost the equivalent of between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year. The report by Sir Nicholas Stern, a senior government economist, represents a huge contrast to the U.S. government's wait-and-see policies.

[Shazam]

If I were to don my cynic's hat, I would say that the Cons put this bill forward fully anticipating it would be changed. So they put in ridiculous timelines and measures as a starting point. This way they can concede those numbers, make the other opposition parties feel good, and still have some pretty ridiculous numbers that companies will be comfortable with.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Are you willing to have a liitle less quality health care and education or road maintenance to the tune of 1,2,5%

Quality health care? do you really not think that a cleaner environment for all of us would lead to better health? Or i guess you and your kids breathing clean air is something you don't give a crap about. I can't even visit places like L.A anymore, as my asthma goes nutso on me....there are many others in my position.

And a more sustainable transportation network would require less roads, and therefore less overall maintenance. Look at Calgary....this city is so stretched out, a great portion of its budget goes to mantaining roads. If the city was more compact, it could spend its money on less roads, but ones of higher quality.

why do people still think the being green means you have to give things up?

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Are you willing to pay more income tax in order for it to happen?

In a word: yes. I think its something worth paying for.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Quality health care? do you really not think that a cleaner environment for all of us would lead to better health? Or i guess you and your kids breathing clean air is something you don't give a crap about. I can't even visit places like L.A anymore, as my asthma goes nutso on me....there are many others in my position.

And a more sustainable transportation network would require less roads, and therefore less overall maintenance. Look at Calgary....this city is so stretched out, a great portion of its budget goes to mantaining roads. If the city was more compact, it could spend its money on less roads, but ones of higher quality.

why do people still think the being green means you have to give things up?

I read the report, I dont debate left leaning thinkers unless I have all the facts, many years going to school in Edmonton and takings English classes in the Socialistic UofA Arts Department taught me that.

To respond to you, I walk to work, Live on the 5th floor of a 6 story condo and rarely drive with the exception of 1 on Saturday and 1 on Suday and occasional trip to see family/friends.

I also know the realities and in responding in this thread indicates that you are in favour of the British report which is why I indicated the % of GDP numbers since it will cost something what are people willing to pay or give up.

MYK

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

To respond to you, I walk to work, Live on the 5th floor of a 6 story condo and rarely drive with the exception of 1 on Saturday and 1 on Suday and occasional trip to see family/friends.
MYK

hey, thats great, you are living a more sustainable life and you dont seem to have a problem with it, right? so why is it inconcievable that it can't be done on a larger scale.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I read the report, I dont debate left leaning thinkers unless I have all the facts, many years going to school in Edmonton and takings English classes in the Socialistic UofA Arts Department taught me that.

To respond to you, I walk to work, Live on the 5th floor of a 6 story condo and rarely drive with the exception of 1 on Saturday and 1 on Suday and occasional trip to see family/friends.

I also know the realities and in responding in this thread indicates that you are in favour of the British report which is why I indicated the % of GDP numbers since it will cost something what are people willing to pay or give up.

MYK

You have indicated in other threads that you disagree with said report. Why?

Didn't it say that if we give up 1% of GDP now we will save our asses in the future? Is it not worth it or is he wrong?

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I read the report, I dont debate left leaning thinkers unless I have all the facts,

Eh?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by troutman

According to this report, the consequences on the economy will be devastating if more is not done on climate change now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/...global_warming

Britain issued a sweeping report Monday warning that the Earth faces a calamity on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression unless urgent action is taken.

The report said unabated climate change would eventually cost the equivalent of between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year. The report by Sir Nicholas Stern, a senior government economist, represents a huge contrast to the U.S. government's wait-and-see policies.

I under stand that, I also understand that the same author of the report is the same person who believe LHR Airport in the UK shouldnt expand yet England should expand its Global Economic reach.

If you take the report as is then of course, spending 1-5% of GDP on combating climate change now is more cost effective than 5-20 down the road. My post was that what are people willing to spend to combat it because it will actually take dollars and cents away from current programs.

If people are ok with an across the board cut of 1-5% of GDP then thats fine, 1-5% less Health Care money, less school, less roads, less military less social assistance, less help for small business etc.

I am under the thinking (however wrong that this may be) that the amount of pollutants now adays from our emissions are a small percentage (say 5-10) of the cause of Global Warming or why the Ozone is deteriorating. I also believe that Science will eventually find a way to replenish the ozone. Now that may sound cooky but I think it might be cheaper (less than the trillion+ being currently asked for).

I still believe that an automatic increase of emmision standards so that todays cars would use 85% less fuel is the way to go - or at least far better than some glorified UN/IOC Pork Barreling effort. The benefits are multifacited. It would automatically reduce GHG in a measureable way, it would reduce the money for Global Terrorism, it would be an automatic boost to the ailing NA auto sector, it would also save me a bundle on gas every year, the down side is that more idiots would live in Airdrie and drive downtown to work and then bitch about the traffic and parking costs

Also, even the mention of higher emission standards for automobiles in Canada brought the rath of Dalton Hell upon the Fed Cons earlier this year for even mentioning it.

The problem is the Daultons of the world - all for manzy panzy environment stuff so long as it doesnt cost them anything, ie Kyoto and car plants being exempt.

MYK

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I am under the thinking (however wrong that this may be) that the amount of pollutants now adays from our emissions are a small percentage (say 5-10) of the cause of Global Warming or why the Ozone is deteriorating. I also believe that Science will eventually find a way to replenish the ozone. Now that may sound cooky but I think it might be cheaper (less than the trillion+ being currently asked for).

Why else do you think the ozone is deteriorating?

And science IS finding a solution, but the thing is thata big part of solution includes measures by the governments of the world to change their practices. Science is finding a solution, but politicians have to implement it!