Conservatives stun Parliament - Absolute GHG limits voted in

[RougeUnderoos]

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 the guy is just a potential candidate in a hypotheticalelection that would take place on the other side of the country. It's not exactly surprising that it slipped under the radar. Who in Calgary cares about or ever even heard of this guy?

As I remember it, nobody brought up the most recent trials and tribulations of a certain sitting MP from Calgary West. That is more interesting to me than the story of an alleged cheque-kiting real estate salesman in Niagara Falls.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

As I remember it, nobody brought up the most recent trials and tribulations of a certain sitting MP from Calgary West. That is more interesting to me than the story of an alleged cheque-kiting real estate salesman in Niagara Falls.

Then I guess you missed this three pager on that exact subject....

Nice try.

[MarchHare]

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?

I agree with this completely, but at the same time, we (meaning the Western democratic nations) must take the initiative and show a leadership position on this issue. We'd be a bunch of hypocrites if we lectured China about cutting back their greenhouse emissions if we weren't also doing the same.

So I guess what I'd really support is a two-pronged strategy: set a positive example for the rest of the world first and then try to get them to follow.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I agree with this completely, but at the same time, we (meaning the Western democratic nations) must take the initiative and show a leadership position on this issue. We'd be a bunch of hypocrites if we lectured China about cutting back their greenhouse emissions if we weren't also doing the same.

So I guess what I'd really support is a two-pronged strategy: set a positive example for the rest of the world first and then try to get them to follow.

I don't buy that at all. China has middle empire syndrome, they don't care what the rest of the world does, and they certainly believe themselves to be a leader that everybody follows.

If we follow Kyoto, China is going to take advantage of it, as are the other developing nations.

The only way that your going to get China to even think about cutting its emissions instead of ramping up thier industty is to slap sanctions on thier products coming off of thier assembly lines until they fall into place.

Remember that China is a country that dosen't respect product patents or international law if it goes against thier goals and aims.

This is one of the reasons why I'm against Kyoto, because to me, its basically a handicapper for the developed nations, and a wealth transfer systems that might or might not benefit the environment.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...This is one of the reasons why I'm against Kyoto, because to me, its basically a handicapper for the developed nations, and a wealth transfer systems that might or might not benefit the environment.

As evidenced in Britain, economic growth CAN coincide with environmentally friendly measures.

"By 2003 Britain's CO2 emissions had fallen to 14 per cent below what they were in 1990, bring the 20 per cent reduction required by 2010 within the nation's grasp.... 'There are immense business opportunities in sustainable growth and moving to a low carbon economy', a view borne out by the 36 per cent expansion in national economic growth during the period emissions dropped 15 per cent." - The Weather Makers p. 247

The trump card that all governments put out about such measures being detrimental to the economy is hogwash. Did banning CFCs hurt? How about asbestos? Regardless of the potential economic impacts of control emissions, OUR ENVIRONMENT CANNOT SUSTAIN LIFE THE WAY THINGS ARE. So you think that to save a few dollars we should kill everything off? Good plan. It's not just the temperature global warming affects. It's life. Crops die from both drought and flooding, animals die from the death of crops, mountain animals move to higher and higher ground so they can be within their sustainable limits. People can put on and take off clothes. Plants and animals can't. The only way they adjust to climate change is by moving, and there's only so far they can move. And what then? They die.

The potential damage that global warming WILL cause FAR outweighs any potential economic fallout of implementing emmissions controls. FAR outweighs.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Then I guess you missed this three pager on that exact subject....

Nice try.

Not that one. This one.

It's not even a week old. Did that make it on to the OT board? I don't think so. But maybe it did.

Do you think that the sketchy shenanigans of a 4 term Calgary MP are a little more newsworthy in Calgary than the sketchy shenanigans of an unelected Niagara Falls real estate salesman?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FireFly

As evidenced in Britain, economic growth CAN coincide with environmentally friendly measures.

"By 2003 Britain's CO2 emissions had fallen to 14 per cent below what they were in 1990, bring the 20 per cent reduction required by 2010 within the nation's grasp.... 'There are immense business opportunities in sustainable growth and moving to a low carbon economy', a view borne out by the 36 per cent expansion in national economic growth during the period emissions dropped 15 per cent." - The Weather Makers p. 247

The trump card that all governments put out about such measures being detrimental to the economy is hogwash. Did banning CFCs hurt? How about asbestos? Regardless of the potential economic impacts of control emissions, OUR ENVIRONMENT CANNOT SUSTAIN LIFE THE WAY THINGS ARE. So you think that to save a few dollars we should kill everything off? Good plan. It's not just the temperature global warming affects. It's life. Crops die from both drought and flooding, animals die from the death of crops, mountain animals move to higher and higher ground so they can be within their sustainable limits. People can put on and take off clothes. Plants and animals can't. The only way they adjust to climate change is by moving, and there's only so far they can move. And what then? They die.

The potential damage that global warming WILL cause FAR outweighs any potential economic fallout of implementing emmissions controls. FAR outweighs.

This has nothing to do with what I said, but thanks for the lecture on the environment.

I have no problems with a global environmental strategy, Kyoto just ain't it.

Until some of the nations who have used thier own countries as a dumping ground are forced to live up to a equivalent standard to the other developed nations then Kyoto is useless.

There has to be a fair balance between national economic interest and the environment as well.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

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?

People should be concerned with what China is doing, but is it really suprising that Canadians focus on Canada first?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This has nothing to do with what I said, but thanks for the lecture on the environment.

I have no problems with a global environmental strategy, Kyoto just ain't it.

Until some of the nations who have used thier own countries as a dumping ground are forced to live up to a equivalent standard to the other developed nations then Kyoto is useless.

There has to be a fair balance between national economic interest and the environment as well.

The lecture wasn't for you, just the first bit.

Did you not say it's a handicapper for developed nations? Did I not show you how it wasn't? Why should developing nations pay for the fact that developed nations have screwed over the globe? China would become bound by Kyoto shortly. I believe they were given until 2012 or something? I'd have to double check that.

Fair balance? Why can't it be positive for both?

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Not that one. This one.

It's not even a week old. Did that make it on to the OT board? I don't think so. But maybe it did.

Hahahaha... come ON Rouge.. that is but a sidebar in the original story I referenced! Heck, and at that, it is all about a placeholder MP. I don't like him either, but he isn't news anymore, and certainly has zero impact on the gov't. I would like to see him out, no question. But come on....

The cheque-kiting story however, WAS new but not covered here.

Again, nice try.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

People should be concerned with what China is doing, but is it really suprising that Canadians focus on Canada first?

Fine. So we want to cut back our weekly garbage bag count to say 5 from 7. Each week, however, our neighbours throw 100 bags into our yard. Then 110... then 125... then 150... etc.

If it were the Glad Man visually performing this analogy, who would YOU focus on? Hmmmm???? Our half dozen bags or the others, that are increasing significantly faster?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Fine. So we want to cut back our weekly garbage bag count to say 5 from 7. Each week, however, our neighbours throw 100 bags into our yard. Then 110... then 125... then 150... etc.

If it were the Glad Man visually performing this analogy, who would YOU focus on? Hmmmm???? Our half dozen bags or the others, that are increasing significantly faster?

both, but i'd deal with my own first. you?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Fine. So we want to cut back our weekly garbage bag count to say 5 from 7. Each week, however, our neighbours throw 100 bags into our yard. Then 110... then 125... then 150... etc.

If it were the Glad Man visually performing this analogy, who would YOU focus on? Hmmmm???? Our half dozen bags or the others, that are increasing significantly faster?

So your solution is to throw garbage back? No? Then what would you like to see? China be forced into the treaty? How do you suppose we do that? So we just sit and wait until China and the US start to act, and then we follow suit? Nice. Good plan. That'll show em!

[Shawnski]

FireFly, you really have to put Britain's situation into perspective. First, they are a tiny, tiny country. There are certainly advantages they could exploit in terms of transit that we would never, ever be able to realize.

Weather impacts? The Brits do not have the extremes we do, thus do not have as significant an issue with dealing with heating and cooling costs.

They most certainly do not have nearly the volume of raw material industries as we do (mining, forestry and of course petroleum).

They are packed so tight together, just the number of bum rubs heats most neighbourhoods effectively.

Comparing Britain to Canada is sheer nonsense. You are smart enough to understand that one. To me, it's like Mobility before the Clearnet merger. Mobility covered one heck of a lot more area, did it far better and with happier clientelle. But Clearnet was in that small concentrated area. Merger comes, and the Clearnet philosophy goes nation wide. Yuck. we then find out that it takes four of them to do one of our jobs, and not even as well. The grass was definitely NOT greener in that one.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So your solution is to throw garbage back? No? Then what would you like to see? China be forced into the treaty? How do you suppose we do that? So we just sit and wait until China and the US start to act, and then we follow suit? Nice. Good plan. That'll show em!

Nice. Glad you put forward such a compelling rebuttal.

Actually, it's pretty simple. Don't by Chinese products. The less we buy from them, the less they polute. Read a label before you buy.

And yes, do what we can on the homefront. It may not be much, but it will help, if not symbolically anyways.

[Slava]

I saw the news piece on this last night after the thread was started and now I'm terrified! I was really starting to buy into the CPC propaganda that there was nothing that could be done about global warming...and then just when they had me convinced that there was no solace to be had in the Kyoto Accord, they decide to abide by it!

Next thing you know they'll be increasing the GST to 7% again and lifting the tax off income trusts. I guess at that point we'd be back to square one...maybe after an election we could just end up with a Liberal government and forget that they ever happened!

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Actually, it's pretty simple. Don't by Chinese products. The less we buy from them, the less they pollute. Read a label before you buy.

Basically, stop buying half of the consumer goods you currently buy. So many previously domestic industries have moved production to China that it is not even funny.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Basically, stop buying half of the consumer goods you currently buy. So many previously domestic industries have moved production to China that it is not even funny.

No doubt... a complete boycott of all Chinese produced goods and parts would cripple consumer/domestic consumption over here... you'd probably see some wicked price increases. A golden day in Mexico though!

[mykalberta]

There will be an election soon with the Liberal Democrate esque motion on Afghanistan so this will never be put into law in the Cons win.

Absoulte targets work for countries in Europe who have declining production, not in countries that are actually growing. We shouldn't be punished for growing later in life. Euros had the whole industral revolution.

Oops, never mind, I just read the Afghan motion was defeated. Hmmm, I wonder how the cons will get past this one? Very strange

MYK

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

FireFly, you really have to put Britain's situation into perspective. First, they are a tiny, tiny country. There are certainly advantages they could exploit in terms of transit that we would never, ever be able to realize.

Weather impacts? The Brits do not have the extremes we do, thus do not have as significant an issue with dealing with heating and cooling costs.

They most certainly do not have nearly the volume of raw material industries as we do (mining, forestry and of course petroleum).

They are packed so tight together, just the number of bum rubs heats most neighbourhoods effectively.

Comparing Britain to Canada is sheer nonsense. You are smart enough to understand that one. To me, it's like Mobility before the Clearnet merger. Mobility covered one heck of a lot more area, did it far better and with happier clientelle. But Clearnet was in that small concentrated area. Merger comes, and the Clearnet philosophy goes nation wide. Yuck. we then find out that it takes four of them to do one of our jobs, and not even as well. The grass was definitely NOT greener in that one.

Nonsense? I didn't compare Britain to Canada, I used it as an example to prove that using less doesn't necessarily mean losing money. Why can't we look at what Britain has done, and use what would work in Canada? 15% reduction in emissions is amazing for ANY country. There has to be some ideas that we can implement. How about focusing on energy efficient homes to reduce the effects of weather extremes? As for the raw material industries... you do realize they burn lots of coal and manufacture lots of stuff? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but that kind of activity pollutes quite a bit. (Yes, I was being facetious.)

Seriously, there are 60 million people in the UK, all using hairdryers and making garbage. Yes, I get that there are differences, (which is why I didn't compare the two, rather used the UK as an example that it CAN be done if we're innovative,) but that doesn't mean we can't learn anything from them.

And your Telus/Clearnet example was lame and bogus. Yeah there are going to be difficulties when one company buys another out, but the problems Telus had were not necessarily with trying to implement the policies of a smaller company. And either way, Telus has had the lowest churn in North America for years, so they have to be doing something right. Regardless, as I said, it's about looking for examples, not copying exactly. But keep making excuses so we can keep polluting.