Conservatives stun Parliament - Absolute GHG limits voted in

[Shawnski]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...4?hub=Politics

OTTAWA -- The Harper Conservatives have stunned the House of Commons by supporting a Bloc Quebecois motion that calls for absolute limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

It's an apparent contradiction of Conservative policies.

The motion was passed unanimously, a rare occurrence in the Commons.

The Bloc motion calls for the government to urgently set absolute targets for cutting greenhouse emissions in order to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto Accord.

Incredulous opposition MP's initially attributed the government's support for the Bloc motion to a translation error, which translated "absolute'' targets as "fixed'' targets.

But after the error was corrected, the government voted in favour.
The Tories have explicitly rejected absolute limits on emissions in favour of "intensity targets,'' which would allow emissions to rise along with economic growth.

<gets out the Jiffy Pop to watch how this thread plays out....>

[FireFly]

Good. Nice to see, and hard for the Liberals to say now that the Conservatives don't have tough environmental policy.

[MarchHare]

hard for the Liberals to say now that the Conservatives don't have tough environmental policy.

Is it really their policy when they voted in favour of a Bloc motion that actually goes against their stated party policy?

In any event, I'm glad this was passed. Good job by all parties involved.

[FireFly]

If it's against their policy, why'd they vote it in? Perhaps their policy changed????

[Slava]

In the immortal words of Ernie McCracken "Nice Flip Flop kid".

Glad to see that it passed, but we'll see what happens.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by FireFly

If it's against their policy, why'd they vote it in? Perhaps their policy changed????

Originally Posted by Slava

In the immortal words of Ernie McCracken "Nice Flip Flop kid".

Interesting....any one think an election is coming soon?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FireFly

If it's against their policy, why'd they vote it in? Perhaps their policy changed????

Maybe they did change their policy, but for years the Conservatives criticized the Liberals of governing based on opinion polls and not sticking to their platform. Don't you find it just a little bit hypocritical now for them to do the same thing, as a large number of Canadians are indicating that the environment is a very important election issue.

[Shawnski]

So is there any link to the fact that the NDP voted down the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan in 2009 (they want it sooner).

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

Trade off in the works here? Or simply that the Conservatives saw the bill (GHG) passing anyways? And just for the record, yes, I support Harper. I think he is a good man. Doesn't mean I won't put forward questions as to his tactics.

On that note, I find it interesting that some here will post pro-Liberal and anti-Conservative threads but not bring up things like the potential* Liberal candidate that got charged for fraud recently. That one seemed to slip under the CP radar.

Just food for thought. Don't mean to start a flame war over it, just interesting to note.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

On that note, I find it interesting that some here will post pro-Liberal and anti-Conservative threads but not bring up things like the potential* Liberal candidate that got charged for fraud recently. That one seemed to slip under the CP radar.

Well, Shawnski, off topic here but here goes:

Not sure if you are referring to me (as one) in this or not (I'm actually not pro-liberal ). I try to post threads on politics because I find it interesting overall; so any angle is fine by me. To be honest, and not saying good or bad, but there are generally more right-wingers on here than left-wingers so I find the right-wing stuff gets posted quicker than other stuff in general (just due to sheer numbers of people on here).

Also, I hadn't heard about the fraud thing - why don't you start a thread on it?

Also, the same can be said for some conservative things...a lot of them seem to slip from the first couple of pages somewhat quicker than other threads.

Anyways, my 2 cents. I say the more people post on politics - from all spectrums and tactics - the better!!

(ok, that was my first REAL off-topic post in a thread. Sorry about that).

[Shawnski]

RH, I just find it interesting that we have significant debate on the Flames.... the good, the bad, and the ugly... seemingly constantly. But even through that, the rah rah folks do come out and point out or agree with some negative aspects. Likewise, the damn near always negative folks can turn around and chime in with great things to say.

But come politics, it is amazing how no one seems to go negative on their own group. I find that extremely interesting.

And as for the fraud case, heck, if it wasn't news here then, it isn't going to be news now. Happened about a week or two ago. Google it. Involved someone writing cheques between accounts so they would appear to clear. Can't remember the term for it. And my steaks are just about done...

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Maybe they did change their policy, but for years the Conservatives criticized the Liberals of governing based on opinion polls and not sticking to their platform. Don't you find it just a little bit hypocritical now for them to do the same thing, as a large number of Canadians are indicating that the environment is a very important election issue.

Hmmmm. Me thinks that might be because it's about the only issue out there right now and the Liberals are forcing it down everyone's throats. However, maybe they just realized that climate change is a real issue and that they should do something about it? I mean, Tony Blair made a number of reforms in the UK in regards to environmental policies and they turned out to have positive economic benifits. Perhaps Harper has looked at that and realized that GHG emissions control doesn't mean death to our economy.

[FlamesAddiction]

I haven't read everything that is stated in the motion, but on the surface, I like it. I hoenstly think Harper is doing some good. Truth be told, he is probably trying to score some points among centrists and lefties for the next election, but it's politics. We need leaders who are willing to do things to "score" on both sides, afterall, doing what the people want is the right thing.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

But come politics, it is amazing how no one seems to go negative on their own group. I find that extremely interesting..

I think that has a lot to do with ideology, Shawnski. Any side has their own particular way of doing something, and that makes it "right". No matter which way, on what issue, or what the evidence says.

But come to the Flames, come on, we all know that the best route is to make me GM and you headcoach. Really, we are all hockey experts on here .

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Hmmmm. Me thinks that might be because it's about the only issue out there right now and the Liberals are forcing it down everyone's throats.

Firefly, you should check out some of Kathryn Harrison's work on this topic. She chronicles on how for the environment, when it becomes a major public issue (such as now...well major as being at least peaks a bit/gets people talking), the federal gov't becomes much more active in environmental affairs. When public interest subsides, so does the feds involvement...and they become content to leave the environment and its responsibility to the provinces.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's not the 1st time Harper has done something "liberal". He decided to tax some types of investments that were earlier untaxed, and to point to what Shawnski is saying; he didn't receive a lot of flack about that from conservatives either.

[RedHot25]

Found this interesting, and thought that I would toss it in here:

http://othernews.ca.myway.com/articl.../43019024.html

A leaked draft of a speech mistakenly sent to the opposition Liberals suggests the Conservative government will promise to stop the rise of greenhouse gases in three to five years.
The so-called Turning the Corner plan, as outlined in the speech, says Canada will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes. That represents 20 per cent of current emissions. Environment Minister David Baird's remarks also say the government will announce a ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs on Wednesday.

[Azure]

Can the Federal government impose this on Alberta as a province?

You can't expect to just cut 20 percent without some sort of fall-out.

And I find it pathetic that the government is now deciding what we should use, and what we shouldn't.

[Shawnski]

I find it also interesting on this day that a report indicates that China, a Kyoto signator but not bound to any limitations as they are a "developing" country, will overtake the US in emissions this year.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...24?hub=SciTech

China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases this year, a news report cited the International Energy Agency as saying.

China had been forecast to surpass the U.S. in 2010, but its sizzling economic growth has pushed the date forward, IEA chief economist Fatih Birol was quoted as saying in an interview in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal newspaper.

Worse yet...

If current trends hold, China's greenhouse gas emissions will likely exceed that of all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, wrote Economy.

And their rationale...

China maintains that richer countries are responsible for the accumulated greenhouse emissions and should take the lead in cleaning up the problem.

Kyoto really is a joke in my opinion. The intent is there, but really, how does shooting yourself in the foot economically help address the root problem when a country like China can just walk over everyone, get the economic benefits and have no consequences.

Dion really needs to name his next dogs "Yen" and "Rubles".

China needs a major backlash from around the globe. They are a nuclear power. They have put people in space and plan on sending some to the moon. How in the heck should they be considered a developing country? Let alone their track record on human rights.

For the miniscule dent we Canadians can make by limiting emissions, it is easily offset by what they are doing. Shouldn't people be spending their time lobbying against China instead of pushing Kyoto here?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Azure

Can the Federal government impose this on Alberta as a province?

You can't expect to just cut 20 percent without some sort of fall-out.

And I find it pathetic that the government is now deciding what we should use, and what we shouldn't.

I wouldn't be surprised if the province takes this one to the Supreme Court arguing that it imposes on their rights to administer natural resources. Probably wouldn't win, but its worth a shot.

I also wonder whether or not there is a NAFTA challenge to this, since it would inherently be screwing with the free exchange of commodities.

Personally, I'm disgusted at the about face of the Conservatives. Problem is, there's no alternative for the centre-right voter in this country.

[Azure]

I find this move disgusting too...but whatever.

If we get the stupid NDP to quit beating the drum on withdrawal, Harper might have a point here.