Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Yo, will Stephen Harper make it to 91?

After Stephen Harper helped block real action on climate change at the G8 meetings that opposed 2020 targets, a tepid plan was developed that may halve emissions by 2050:

Canada trumpets G8 vow to halve emissions by 2050
Last Updated: Tuesday, July 8, 2008 | 11:55 AM ET
CBC News

The Group of Eight industrialized nations on Tuesday endorsed halving global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 in a declaration praised by the Canadian government.

By which time Stephen Harper expects to already be long since dead and buried (literally, not just politically):
“In four decades I’d probably be dead — I’m sure that I will be dead.” (Stephen Harper, Dec. 18, 2006, Toronto Star)

As I look outside on a smoggy Toronto afternoon, I can’t help but wonder if Steve, and many other Canadians, might have a better shot at seeing 2050 if we did something about emissions just a little sooner then 2050. We’d need to lay off the apple fritters too, but it would help.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

7 comments:

Johnathon said...

Is Harper really to blame any more than the other 7 leaders?

If Harper is wrong on climate change, are the other 7 countries?

Make sure to lay the blame evenly.

Joseph L. Angolano said...

OK, Johathon.

Haprer is to blame, as is everyone other country that refuses to get on board with reducing CO2 emissions.

Hope that makes you happy.

Cheers.

A BCer in Toronto said...

Some of the leaders are more to blame than others, Harper is among the group blocking stronger action. So I'll lay the blame evenly across the anti-action group. And since only one of that group opposing action is my Prime Minister, I'll single him out for particular attention.

Oldschool said...

By 2050 it will be painfully obvious to all concerned that:
Al Gore is a total flake, although a very rich one!
GW is complete nonsense, everyone gets it except AL and the Suzzz!
CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas with no effect on temperature!

The really big story for 2050 will be the COMING ICE AGE!!!

The solution will be . . . lower gas prices, start building SUV's and turn up your thermostats!!!

Barcs said...

Tsk Tsk..

You are confusing smog with carbon again....

Pollution with climate change and greenhouse gases...



40% of GHG come from Sask and Alberta combined.... You might want to take a drive around the country.... the Smog you see in Toronto isn't here. Unless the evil west (and Harper) can control the weather and send all their smog to Toronto.



Jeff... be sure to get a picture of Harper with Ms. Ambrose's fossil of the day award... it'll go nice on Dion's mantle next to his fossil of the day award.

JimBobby said...

Whooee! In almost every instance of GHG reduction, conventional particulate pollution is also reduced. Very few smokestacks or tailpipes are emitting only GHG's. Way back in 1999, the OECD published a paper on this topic and outlined numerous ways in which CO2 and GHG reductions would also reduce pollution. OECD paper (PDF, only 14 pages and easy to follow.)

Conventional particulate and chemical pollution is responsible for "bad air days" in the Great Lakes basin. These bad air days are responsible for 9,000 premature deaths in Canada every year. They are also responsible for an exponential number of ER and doctor visits. Bad air days keep employees off work and decrease productivity. Dirty air is costing our health care system and our overall economy billions.

If I live to 2050, I'll be 101. I ain't countin' on livin that long but that don't stop me from doin' what I can to leave a healthy planet for my grandkids.

JB

Barcs said...

jimbobby... You are correct in that.

However you might remember Premier McGuinty a year or more back wasn't going to install pollution scrubbers in Ontario's coal power generation since it would not reduce CO2....


While reducing CO2 emissions will indirectly reduce (Actual) pollution.... Wouldn't we be farther ahead on the health file if we were to just spend more money on reducing (actual) pollution instead of splitting some money off to curtail the production of a chemical compound that every human and animal produces as we exhale?