Friday, February 09, 2007

Steve, Rona, John, You didn't get it done

It was the Conservatives in government last summer, right? When they made this commitment to reduce greenhouse-gas that apparently they've done sweet-nothing since to meet? I look forward to reading how the Cons failing to meet their own promise on the environment is somehow the Liberals' fault.

I'm sorry Steve, but you didn't get it done. Steve Harper is not a leader.

Emissions report card puts Canada last
Country has 'no plan' to fulfill pledge from G8 summit, U of T researchers say
From Friday's Globe and Mail

TORONTO — Canada ranks dead last among members of the G8 industrialized countries when it comes to keeping a pledge made last year to fight climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, according to a report prepared by researchers at the University of Toronto.

Canada was the only Group of Eight country deemed to have posted a complete lack of compliance with the greenhouse-gas reduction goal set at last summer's G8 summit in St. Petersburg.

Canada has "no plan" to cut its emissions in the short or long term, and could have rising output of the gases blamed for global warming under the Conservatives' Clean Air Act because the legislation doesn't cap releases, the report said.

Ottawa has announced that Canada will reduce greenhouse emissions by 45 per cent -- to 65 per cent -- by 2050, but the report noted that as of Dec. 31, the date at which it conducted the country comparisons, "Canada had not taken significant steps to curb GHG emissions, nor did it have a plan in place to move forward on meeting its Kyoto-mandated targets nor the ambitious 2050 targets."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


Anonymous said...

Um... pretty vaccuous logic, there buddy.

The Liberals had 13 years to address climate issues and did nothing at all. They talked a good talk, but produced no tangible benefits. They were too busy stealing from the tax payer to take any action on climate change.

One year, if I'm not mistaken, is considerably less than a decade, RIGHT?

Jean Chretien signed the Kyoto Accord in 1997, did he not? Why did emmissions increase 35%, even when Dion was Envo Minister? If Stephane Dion has an environmental halo, its made out of feces.

So, according to your fucked up Liberal logic, the Conservatives should have done in 12 months what two Liberal governments were unable, for all their bullshit, arrogant, corrupt rhetoric, to accomplish in as many YEARS!!!

This is why the thieves' guild (Fiberal party) is going to lose the next election badly. Go run for office if you care so badly about the environment.

Oh, wait, Gerard Kennedy just said you are to be disenfranchised because you have a cock (or so I assume.)

Stupid ignorant Liberals!

canuckistanian said...

conservatives, especially anonymous trolls, are so friendly. not an angry bone in their bodies.

JimBobby said...

"Canada was the only Group of Eight country deemed to have posted a complete lack of compliance with the greenhouse-gas reduction goal set at last summer's G8 summit in St. Petersburg."

This ain't 'bout the 13 ditherin' years. It's 'bout the current bunch sayin' one thing at the G8 an' then doin' sumpin' different when they come home. Ain't anybuddy else ashamed an' embarrassed that we're the only G8 country to have failed so miserably at following through?

The Grits failed on implementin' Kyoto. That's an embarrassment an' a shame.

The Cons failed on the G8 commitment. That's an embarrassment an' a shame.

The difference between the Grits an' Cons is the Grits bought inta the science but failed to act effectively while the Cons, until jest a week or so ago, rejected the science an' also failed to act effectively.

The Grits failed to act because they have a tuff time gettin' things done. It ain't like they didn't start but it sure don't look like they was takin' their Kyoto commitment seriously.

The Cons failed to act because they didn't see any advantage when they were still rejectin' anthropogenic climate change an' they never took Kyoto seriously.

We're gonna need t' pull ourselves up by the boot straps if we wanna be anything other than an international pariah. So far, it's tuff t' say who's better able t' do that - Grit or Con. I say neither.

Earth Mother Lizzie May's Canada's answer t' regainin' international respect.


susansmith said...

Well Jimmy, considering that in the fed election 2006, the New Democratic 'Green" Party had their environmental policies rated better by environmental groups, like Sierra for one, me thinks that Lizzie has her work cut out for her. Should reads Eugene's post today, where Libs dropped the ball in 2003 to support fuel efficent cars - thus supporting our auto industry and promoting fair trade. Cons can't manage to wrap their heads around that one.

JimBobby said...

Well, JanGal, I figger the Dipper's is a bit like the Grits. They can talk a good talk on green stuff. When push comes t' shove, teh Dips'll side with the dirty car makers who keep the union folks workin'.

The Sierra Club endorsed what the NDP put on paper - not what the NDP had actually accomplished. NDP gummints in BC an 'Sasky got pitiful records when it comes t' loggin' an' minin' issues. We ain't never had a NDP fed gummint so alls we can look at fer the party's record is what they done provincially -- an' that weren't impressive.

The Dips is clingin' t' a outdated economic model - socialism. Sure, on paper, socialism looks good. Idally, it might be great. But we ain't livin' in an ideal world. The reality is that biznesses, big an' small, hold great sway. The GPC sees bizness as our ally in makin' changes. The NDP sees bizness as its enemy an' because of that, can never enlist the much-needed cooperation of bizness in affectin' green action.

GPC an' NDP are two very different parties with similar ideas on the environment and a few other issues. If the NDP would get out o' bed with the unions an' the dirty industries who employ them unions, they might have sum credibility.

The new green economy is gonna need entrepreneurs an' venture capitalists t' create green-collar jobs. Entrepreneurs an' venture capitalists ain't the natural constituency o' the Dippers. The GPC's fiscally conservative, bizness-friendly philosophy is the antithesis of the NDP's adversarial posture. If we want green action, we need bizness cooperation an' we ain't gonna get it if the NDP's callin' the shots.


wilson said...

Canada's industry and population is growing , energy use is also growing.
What measures would the Green Party put into place to halt the increase jobs and population Jimbobby?

When going full speed ahead, it is impossible to shift into reverse without slowing and then stopping first.
Try it in your eco-efficient car, throw it into reverse while racing down the 401, 'there will be consequences'.

Wouldn't it make better sense to give billions to Ontario and Alberta to go nuclear (thusly reducing GHGs) than give billions to Russia because their economy collapsed?

''Economy produces 89,000 jobs in January explosion
Feb. 9 2007

Canada's economy produced 89,000 jobs last month in a January explosion that was fuelled by increases in British Columbia and Alberta.

The growth far surpassed analyst expectations that only 13,000 positions would be created ...''

wilson said...

''The Sierra Club endorsed what the NDP put on paper - not what the NDP had actually accomplished.''

And what exactly has the Green Party accomplished?
Wasn't Garth Turner on some Sierra Club committee? Why didn't he join the Green Party?

Jeff said...

Um... pretty vaccuous logic, there buddy. ...

There may have been a point in there but the profanity obscured it from view.

JimBobby said...

Whooee! Wilsonfeller, I never sed the GPC had a track record. I only sed the Sierra endorsement was fer teh paper policy. Now, if yer gonna vote based on paper policy, it might be a good thing t' know a track record, if there is one. The Dips have a track record an' it's bad.

"What measures would the Green Party put into place to halt the increase jobs and population Jimbobby?"

The GPC has no intention of reducing the increase or in cutting jobs. Anyone who knows anything about the GPC would know about the commitment to green-collar job creation and a sustainable economy.

They explain way better than me:

Why didn't Garth join the Greens? I ain't Garth but I got an idea why he went t' the Grits. The GPC is financially poor. It's a grassroots party. Candidates runnin' fer the GPC don't get much by way o' expense accounts an' fundin' from the head office. They're mostly dedicated fellers an' gals who put their jobs on hold an' finance their own campaigns. I reckon the Grits'll pour a heap o' dough inta helpin' Garth win an' he'd o' had t' dig inta his pocket too deep t' launch a winnin' GPC campaign.

Most GPC candidates rum with the almost certainty they'll lose. They run because they're true believers in green action an' most people who vote fer the GPC candidate know full well that they ain't gonna win. They vote GPC t' send a message t' the one who does win - "You want the 8%+ GPC vote? Earn it with effective green action."


Steve V said...

If I had to sum up the Tory plan in one word it would "soon". Ambrose loved the word, ditto for Harper and now John uses it frequently. The only problem with "soon", by definition it admits "nothing" in the present tense.

Anonymous said...

The trouble with the NDP is they have no idea how to apply anything that would be "fiscally" responsible. In fact, I shudder to think what our taxes would be if we had to cover all their policies and ideas - it would be financially next to impossible to follow their plans.

The two have to mix.

Actually, I don't even see the need for the NDP party any more. They haven't had a new vision since at least the 70's - they are still in the protesting hippie mode.

Canada couldn't afford the NDP leading the country - we sure would be a third world country with them.

Unfortunately, money and economy count and the Green Party are aware of this. Actually all the parties other than the NDP understand the importance of "corporations" and the economy.

Dion WAS NOT environment minister since 1997 by the way. He was environment minister slightly longer than Harper has been PM. If Harper tuly had a handle on priorities - why did he not even have an environment plan - he had all that time in opposition to develop one plus the year he's been PM.

He absolutley does not care about the climate - it was the polls that got him on it.

If the Polls showed that a large majority of Canadians wanted a box of chocolates delivered to their homes every day - you can bet Harper would provide in his quest for a majority.

Hey, let's cry for chocolates as a priority for Canadians every day and see what happens.

Dr. Tux said...

It does not matter that Dion was environment minister for only slightly longer than Harper has been in office. Why?

Because, stupids, the message Harper has crafted is not meant to be revealing or insightful. It's meant to be simplistic and easy to understand. Reality doesn't count. Got that?

Harper and his minions (the blogging tories and many anon's) aren't at all interested in reality. They're more interested in shouting reality down.

It's much easier to pretend you're governing then to actually govern. And it's much easier to say the simplist shit and repeat it like a broken record, then it is to come up with a credible plan to meet our climate challenges.

Liberals didn't get it done! We're going to Act! Liberals didn't get it done! We're going to Act!

Welcome to Canada's version of U.S. dumbed down politics.