Green Tories? Harper Rolls Out Environmental Policy

[RedHot25]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

"Our government is going to replace talk with action on air pollutants and greenhouse gases," he said, flanked by Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn and Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon.
The act would achieve the following things:

• Move industry from voluntary compliance to strict enforcement;
• Replace the current ad hoc, patchwork system with clear, consistent, and comprehensive national standards; and
• Institute a holistic approach that doesn't treat the related issues of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in isolation.

Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about air quality and its effect on their health, Harper said, pointing out smog in particular.


...


One reporter asked him why the plan appeared to be spending 10 times more on smog reductions than greenhouse gas reductions and why there were no timelines.
Harper said his announcement was only part of the plan, and that further initiatives will be made public later.

....



CP reports the "new" agenda will draw substantially on initiatives and ideas set out by the previous Liberal government.

[fanforever1986]

Sounds good...I'm wondering what the granola crunchers think of it. In the past its seemed that no matter what a gov't comes up with, the mean lean green bean's say 'IT WONT DO ANYTHING'...surely this must at least partially please some of them?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

Sounds good...I'm wondering what the granola crunchers think of it. In the past its seemed that no matter what a gov't comes up with, the mean lean green bean's say 'IT WONT DO ANYTHING'...surely this must at least partially please some of them?

What exactly sounds good here? Other than the "Move industry from voluntary compliance to strict enforcement;" (which is a good thing) there doesn't appear to be much to this thing.

I hope there is more to it somewhere.

• Replace the current ad hoc, patchwork system with clear, consistent, and comprehensive national standards; and
• Institute a holistic approach that doesn't treat the related issues of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in isolation.

That sounds like two fancy ways of saying "we aren't going to do it the old way" but that is about it.

[fanforever1986]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What exactly sounds good here? Other than the "Move industry from voluntary compliance to strict enforcement;" (which is a good thing) there doesn't appear to be much to this thing.

I hope there is more to it somewhere.

• Replace the current ad hoc, patchwork system with clear, consistent, and comprehensive national standards; and
• Institute a holistic approach that doesn't treat the related issues of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in isolation.

That sounds like two fancy ways of saying "we aren't going to do it the old way" but that is about it.

among other things, I would enjoy a daily smog rating. I think theres lots of good that is coming out of this. And the most important issue of strict enforcement is going ahead...I hope that answers your question.

[Table 5]

it's a good step in the right direction, but like rouge said, it would be good to see some hard facts and numbers instead of just fancy words. I will withold my yay or nay until I do so.

Im not sure if I could have envisioned this 5 years ago, but how a party deals with the environment and global warming has now become my #1 issue when I am deciding who to vote for. I truly think it is the biggest long-term difference maker for ourselves and our offspring.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

among other things, I would enjoy a daily smog rating. I think theres lots of good that is coming out of this. And the most important issue of strict enforcement is going ahead...I hope that answers your question.

Strict enforcement of what exactly? That's why I don't see much here -- they don't tell us anything specific. No numbers, no timelines, not much of anything.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Strict enforcement of what exactly? That's why I don't see much here -- they don't tell us anything specific. No numbers, no timelines, not much of anything.

Given this statement/question, which I think is fair, it is interesting to note that according to the story...

Originally Posted by RedHot25

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories


CP reports the "new" agenda will draw substantially on initiatives and ideas set out by the previous Liberal government.

So what is new? I am asking as I am naive - I truly don't know. If they are at this point talking in a lot of grandiose words etc, without much solid substance at the momment, and then you have comments like that above, doesn't it make you wonder...? Are they doing something truly different, or are they for the most part following something that's been proposed before (of which they have criticized quite a bit) and do not want that revealed?


Or has my panic/confusion about my research study proceeded over to here, continuing my ability to make a lot out of nothing...!

[Flames in 07]

the problem with green is that people think it's great until they understand what the impacts are.

If people want to be serious about reducing emissions, there are many problems with each proposed solution.

Coal is dirty as he// but less coal means more fossil fuels ... reserves are hard to find as it is.

reducing use of oil or taxing oil production like Kyoto would have done would mean $2.00 gas. that will make people forget about the benefits of green in a hurry

And wind/solar sounds nice but is unpracticle and expensive.

easy to be an expert and crack on the gov't, conservative or liberal, but the reality is that this is a very complex problem with no easy ... and maybe no complicated solutions.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

the problem with green is that people think it's great until they understand what the impacts are.

For sure... people are used to a lifestyle that promotes garbage, pollution, and waste. A 'green' lifestyle would probably force people to make some difficult changes (take the bus ), and probably reduce our 'quality of life' when it comes to the great advantages/bonuses a wasteful society enjoys.

[fanforever1986]

While we're cracking about things things....i love how David Suizuki can come to Calgary and prech we're all horrible people for the urban sprawl going on here, but then goes back to his OWN island just outside of vancouver. Sounds fair to me David, I'll live in a 2 room appartment while you get an island. what a loser.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

While we're cracking about things things....i love how David Suizuki can come to Calgary and prech we're all horrible people for the urban sprawl going on here, but then goes back to his OWN island just outside of vancouver. Sounds fair to me David, I'll live in a 2 room appartment while you get an island. what a loser.

So... you're not an environmentalist becuase David Suzuki doesn't want to live in the filth and pollution that the rest of society creates?

Good logic...

[metallicat]

Whatever they come up with is sure to be a better idea than allowing our country to buy clean air credits from Russia.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

the problem with green is that people think it's great until they understand what the impacts are.

If people want to be serious about reducing emissions, there are many problems with each proposed solution.

Coal is dirty as he// but less coal means more fossil fuels ... reserves are hard to find as it is.

reducing use of oil or taxing oil production like Kyoto would have done would mean $2.00 gas. that will make people forget about the benefits of green in a hurry

And wind/solar sounds nice but is unpracticle and expensive.

easy to be an expert and crack on the gov't, conservative or liberal, but the reality is that this is a very complex problem with no easy ... and maybe no complicated solutions.

The problem with people like you is you don't understand or have failed to learn about Climate Change. You think green sucks, but don't understand what the impacts are.

The government of Canada has created a program called the RETscreen, it is a wind-power program that analyzes the costs/benefits/profit of wind power anywhere on the planet. You should at least read a bit about it before talking ignorantly about it. There is nothing expensive or unpracticle [sic] (or rather how we say it in english: impractical) about wind power. Wind power doesn't cost... anything and it's not non-renewable.

I don't even think I am going to respond to anything else in your post... You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about and have never bothered to learn anything about renewable or alternative fuel sources, let alone climate change, CO2 emmissions, greehouse gases etc...

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

There is nothing expensive or unpracticle [sic] (or rather how we say it in english: impractical) about wind power. Wind power doesn't cost... anything and it's not non-renewable.

Wind power is FAR from cheap, and can be a huge gamble to implement. The last time we ran a cost analysis on a wind farm, it was $2 million US per 1 megawatt turbine, and in order to pay it off within 7 years it needed a min $0.075/kWh pool price and min 35% up time.

The only place a wind turbine makes sense is in a de-regulated market with high commodity prices, an area with consistent winds, or in a heavily government subsidized market.....which would explain why wind accounts for 510MW of a total 11,477MW generation (4.5%) in Alberta. If it had a better payout you would see massive wind development going on....not gas.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Wind power is FAR from cheap, and can be a huge gamble to implement. The last time we ran a cost analysis on a wind farm, it was $2 million US per 1 megawatt turbine, and in order to pay it off within 7 years it needed a min $0.075/kWh pool price and min 35% up time.

The only place a wind turbine makes sense is in a de-regulated market with high commodity prices, an area with consistent winds, or in a heavily government subsidized market.....which would explain why wind accounts for 510MW of a total 11,477MW generation (4.5%) in Alberta. If it had a better payout you would see massive wind development going on....not gas.

Check out this link:

http://www.retscreen.net/

Basically this is state-of-the-art technology that does Canada proud internationally. You can determine if a wind-farm will be profitable anywhere in the world. Including the profit within the first year, how long it would take to pay off the initial investment, how high the winds are etc. It really is quite amazing.

What you are quoting inevitably is one particular place, and would make no sense to apply that everywhere. Plus, how can something like this not make sense unless it is deregulated or heavily government subsidized? So basically it makes sense, everywhere?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Check out this link:

http://www.retscreen.net/

Basically this is state-of-the-art technology that does Canada proud internationally. You can determine if a wind-farm will be profitable anywhere in the world. Including the profit within the first year, how long it would take to pay off the initial investment, how high the winds are etc. It really is quite amazing.

What you are quoting inevitably is one particular place, and would make no sense to apply that everywhere. Plus, how can something like this not make sense unless it is deregulated or heavily government subsidized? So basically it makes sense, everywhere?

He said deregulated with high commodity prices.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Check out this link:

http://www.retscreen.net/

Basically this is state-of-the-art technology that does Canada proud internationally. You can determine if a wind-farm will be profitable anywhere in the world. Including the profit within the first year, how long it would take to pay off the initial investment, how high the winds are etc. It really is quite amazing.

What you are quoting inevitably is one particular place, and would make no sense to apply that everywhere. Plus, how can something like this not make sense unless it is deregulated or heavily government subsidized? So basically it makes sense, everywhere?

Great idea. Wind and solar power will make for a solid transition period from oil to something else that the market innovates. However, relying solely on wind and solar power for a complete transition would be economic folly.

Yes, yes, yes. I know you enviro lefties love the working man but hate the economy, but consider this... By 2020 the Athabasca Oil Sands will contribute $885 billion to the North America economy and 6.5 million person years of employment. Now... what can you find that replaces all that.

Wind? I was reading that Denmark has the leading wind industry, it employs something like 10 000. Great for Denmark, not so much for Canada.

The proper solution is to start using market mechanisms to give both producers and consumers to cut back on fossil fuel use and to start innovating new green technology.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by peter12

Great idea. Wind and solar power will make for a solid transition period from oil to something else that the market innovates. However, relying solely on wind and solar power for a complete transition would be economic folly.

Yes, yes, yes. I know you enviro lefties love the working man but hate the economy, but consider this... By 2020 the Athabasca Oil Sands will contribute $885 billion to the North America economy and 6.5 million person years of employment. Now... what can you find that replaces all that.

Wind? I was reading that Denmark has the leading wind industry, it employs something like 10 000. Great for Denmark, not so much for Canada.

The proper solution is to start using market mechanisms to give both producers and consumers to cut back on fossil fuel use and to start innovating new green technology.

I agree with most of what you're saying. Fossil fuels are going to run out, that's a fact. Regardless of how quickly or how slowly you think this will happen, inevitably it will. I agree that an all-or-nothing switch to more sustainable fuel sources would probably not be the best way to go about implementing wind energy, which is exactly why we should be investing in it now - before the oil is gone. That way, in a purely economical sense, by the time we are forced to find alternative fuel sources, we will have the infrastructure in place to ensure we do not go back to the stone-age.

There are places in Canada where wind farms are viable. There is a huge windfarm that you can see when you're driving on the trans Canada in Sask. that is profitable, granted not everywhere has the wind to make it possible, but we do have the resources available to find places that are.

No one is denying how much the oilsands, for example, are contributing to the economy but everybody seems to be denying the repercussions of the oil industry.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by fanforever1986

Sounds good...I'm wondering what the granola crunchers think of it. In the past its seemed that no matter what a gov't comes up with, the mean lean green bean's say 'IT WONT DO ANYTHING'...surely this must at least partially please some of them?

What kind of like the opposite where anything tried will completely destroy the world economy and send us back to the stone age?

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

the problem with green is that people think it's great until they understand what the impacts are.

It's the impacts that are exactly what the green people are thinking about.

Originally Posted by fotze

My parties do-nothing claptrap is better than your parties do-nothing jibba jabba.

I wouldn't mind emissions standards for vehicles. You see EVERYWHERE old jalopies spewing smoke you could cut with a knife. Usually they are old volkswagon vans that those snowboarders drive.

Good point. Doesn't BC have those standards already. Rediculous that those aren't in place already. In the UK they've had those for decades.

The one significant part is the enforcement angle and it doesn't say to what degree or by when the non mentioned standards will be enforced.
Funny that the quote has more action less talk in it and then does the opposite.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I agree with most of what you're saying. Fossil fuels are going to run out, that's a fact. Regardless of how quickly or how slowly you think this will happen, inevitably it will. I agree that an all-or-nothing switch to more sustainable fuel sources would probably not be the best way to go about implementing wind energy, which is exactly why we should be investing in it now - before the oil is gone. That way, in a purely economical sense, by the time we are forced to find alternative fuel sources, we will have the infrastructure in place to ensure we do not go back to the stone-age.

There are places in Canada where wind farms are viable. There is a huge windfarm that you can see when you're driving on the trans Canada in Sask. that is profitable, granted not everywhere has the wind to make it possible, but we do have the resources available to find places that are.

No one is denying how much the oilsands, for example, are contributing to the economy but everybody seems to be denying the repercussions of the oil industry.

Absolutely, good to see we agree. Well we will never "run out" of fossil fuels, there's a quote from the Saudi Oil Minister that I like to use, "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones, likewise the Oil Age won't end because we ran out of oil."

The point is the market will invent something better. Government's job is to stay out of the way and encourage, through the tax regime, the development of green energy.

The Oil Sands are a trememdous boost to our economy and virtually all Albertans standard of living. We need to develop it to its maximum potential. However, as you say, the repercussions need to be fixed or lessened in order for our precious environment not to collapse.

How do you do this? Well heavy government regulation has proven ineffective, you just simply cannot regulate the massive amount of development , caps on resource use, such as water won't work either. Caps simply encourage people to use... the cap and not make their process more efficient.