CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4615
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:09 am
 


Tories outline revamped climate change targets

[align=left]Canada will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes, or 20 per cent, by 2020, Environment Minister John Baird said Wednesday in a speech outlining the Conservatives' revamped climate change program.

Baird's highly anticipated announcement on the government's greenhouse gas targets for industry was expected to be given in Toronto Thursday.

But the minister was forced to release the speech in advance after it was mistakenly faxed Wednesday to Liberal environment critic David McGuinty.

Baird said the Tories intend to halt the rise of greenhouse gases in three to five years by forcing 700 of the largest industrial polluters in Canada to reduce their emissions.

"We need to do a U-turn," he said. "We don't want to replace 10 years of bad environmental policy with 10 years of bad economic policy.”

The plan, dubbed Turning the Corner, calls for industries to make in-house reductions, participate in domestic emissions trading, purchase energy offsets and invest in a technology fund. It also pledges national fixed emissions caps for industrial pollutants to cut air pollution in half by 2015.

"If the Liberal government had instituted this plan in 1998 when they signed Kyoto, Canada would have achieved its emissions target," Baird said. "Canada would be at Kyoto today."

More details of the plan are expected in another announcement Thursday.

Inefficient bulbs banned by 2012

Baird's speech came as Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn announced the government would ban the sale of inefficient light bulbs by 2012.

Lunn said the plan could see Canadians saving up to 4,000 megawatts of power a year, or up to $4 billion in energy costs.

The plan to phase out most incandescent bulbs follows a similar proposal announced recently by Ontario.

"We must have strong national standards to support provinces and territories that are making their own standards," Lunn said.

Compact fluorescent bulbs use around 75 per cent less electricity than standard incandescent bulbs, which will be banned in Europe beginning in 2009 and in 2010 in Australia.

Previous clean air bill in limbo

Baird's announcement comes after the Tories' previous emission targets bill — the clean air act introduced last fall and heavily reworked by opposition parties in committee — remains in limbo.

Bill C-30 initially had no hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions until 2020 at the earliest, with the government seeking to cut emissions by between 45 per cent and 65 per cent by 2050.

On Monday, Baird said the federal government was still weighing its response to the amendments and declined to say whether he will bring the altered bill before Parliament for a vote.

Last week, Baird warned a Senate environment committee of dire economic consequences if Canada were to meet its Kyoto promises on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

A private member's bill, introduced by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez and passed by the Commons, calls for the federal government to honour Canada's commitment under the Kyoto treaty.

Baird said the private member's bill was a "risky, reckless scheme" that would cost 275,000 Canadians their jobs by 2009.
[/align]
Source


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6932
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 am
 


This leave’s me wondering if this flip flop had anything to do with government getting the NDP’s support to quash the Liberal motion about pulling out our troops. Two surprises from the Commons yesterday. :roll:


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4615
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:08 am
 


$1:

This leave’s me wondering if this flip flop had anything to do with government getting the NDP’s support to quash the Liberal motion about pulling out our troops. Two surprises from the Commons yesterday. Rolling Eyes

Hmm never thought of that but you could be right.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 227
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:08 pm
 


The liberals and NDP will probably vote against it anyway...


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 533
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:20 pm
 


Looks like someone had a grip on reality when designing this plan. Though even with this plan Canadians will be bent over a rock without lube. But I'll take the lesser of the evils/buttpounding/scams.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 601
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:04 pm
 


Haha.
So what ever happened to the CONS clean air act?

Idiots

Cons trying to CON the people yet again

BTW, have you CON supporters seen the latest polls
Maybe Canadians (RW Canadians, if you can call them that) are not being CONNED after all

$1:
Though even with this plan Canadians will be bent over a rock without lube.


Now that sounds sexy... :D


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:21 pm
 


$1:
Now that sounds sexy...


PERVERT


Offline
Active Member
Active Member


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 227
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:41 am
 


This is hillarious! Im sitting here watching CTV Newsnet, You have them saying that had this plan been brought into effect when the Liberals signed Kyoto we would already be at the kyoto targets.

Then you have Dion saying that its not enough, to little to late.... Does he realize that he is critisizing his own inaction? No of course not, maybe its the language barrier, I cant imagine anyone being that stupid.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 814
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:30 am
 


Hmm, well it's something I suppose. I guess after the PR disaster of the "economic recession" claims, Baird had to do something that made it look like he still remembered that his remit is Environment, not Industry. Hence the lightbulbs and the 20% emissions reductions plans.

You might be interested to know that the UK Government recently put forward a Bill to reduce emissions by 60% - but by 2050. Of course, some experts say we'll need reductions of 90% by 2050, and I think they're probably right.

Here's a link to a take on how such a Bill might be implemented in the UK, and what the implications are. A Bill which makes reducing carbon emissions a legal duty

The thing about meeting emissions reductions is that it could, with imaginative leadership, and an alternative approach to economics, be turned into a positive opportunity.

Think about all the great things we could do in the name of reducing emissions: insulate our houses to save on heating; use more local, sustainable, renewable materials for building; building design would be more intelligent and efficient; we would purchase foods that are grown locally and are less packaged; buy less disposable plastic crap from China for our children and our own tiny attention spans; shops might source products that are locally made; this would lead to a regeneration of skills and the local economy; less plastic crap would probably mean healthier environments and thus healthier lives; we might not have such easy access to the pharmaceutical industry, but perhaps this would encourage us to take more control of our health and use herbal medicinal knowledge where appropriate (I've not been to a doctor or taken pills, even aspirin in years, because I know how to use herbs etc); maybe we would end up spending less time commuting in our cars; maybe public transport systems would be improved; hey, maybe one day we'd get less obsessed with oil and would stop invading countries to get at it.

As CO2 emissions reductions become compulsary, combined with rising oil prices, the wisest communities and leaders will start putting in place systems that mean less dependency from oil, most likely from a re-localisation of the economy. Folks that want to keep their way of life just as it is, with extra fries, thank you very much, are going to have to face facts in the end. They just may find that the shock is all the more dramatic when it comes.

I think if a government is genuine about reducing emissions, they cannot just look for technological fixes. There needs to be a deep change in society, and perhaps this can ultimately lead to some positives, not just sacrifices. We have a choice. We can either be all doom-and-gloom, resisting change with our last breath, and casting the future as disastrous without our X-Boxes and Barbie dolls, or we can take the bull by the horns and make it work.

It's like when you're in the sea facing big waves... If you fearfully linger back, and try to stand up or paddle back when the wave hits you, you'll go under and get tumbled round. But if you dive into the wave, ducking under and swimming through, then you come smoothly out the other side. Easy!


Offline
Newbie
Newbie


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:19 pm
 


MissT MissT:
Hmm, well it's something I suppose. I guess after the PR disaster of the "economic recession" claims, Baird had to do something that made it look like he still remembered that his remit is Environment, not Industry. Hence the lightbulbs and the 20% emissions reductions plans.

You might be interested to know that the UK Government recently put forward a Bill to reduce emissions by 60% - but by 2050. Of course, some experts say we'll need reductions of 90% by 2050, and I think they're probably right.

The thing about meeting emissions reductions is that it could, with imaginative leadership, and an alternative approach to economics, be turned into a positive opportunity.

Think about all the great things we could do in the name of reducing emissions: insulate our houses to save on heating; use more local, sustainable, renewable materials for building; building design would be more intelligent and efficient; we would purchase foods that are grown locally and are less packaged; buy less disposable plastic crap from China for our children and our own tiny attention spans; shops might source products that are locally made; this would lead to a regeneration of skills and the local economy; less plastic crap would probably mean healthier environments and thus healthier lives; we might not have such easy access to the pharmaceutical industry, but perhaps this would encourage us to take more control of our health and use herbal medicinal knowledge where appropriate (I've not been to a doctor or taken pills, even aspirin in years, because I know how to use herbs etc); maybe we would end up spending less time commuting in our cars; maybe public transport systems would be improved; hey, maybe one day we'd get less obsessed with oil and would stop invading countries to get at it.

As CO2 emissions reductions become compulsary, combined with rising oil prices, the wisest communities and leaders will start putting in place systems that mean less dependency from oil, most likely from a re-localisation of the economy. Folks that want to keep their way of life just as it is, with extra fries, thank you very much, are going to have to face facts in the end. They just may find that the shock is all the more dramatic when it comes.

I think if a government is genuine about reducing emissions, they cannot just look for technological fixes. There needs to be a deep change in society, and perhaps this can ultimately lead to some positives, not just sacrifices. We have a choice. We can either be all doom-and-gloom, resisting change with our last breath, and casting the future as disastrous without our X-Boxes and Barbie dolls, or we can take the bull by the horns and make it work.

It's like when you're in the sea facing big waves... If you fearfully linger back, and try to stand up or paddle back when the wave hits you, you'll go under and get tumbled round. But if you dive into the wave, ducking under and swimming through, then you come smoothly out the other side. Easy!


Easy? Not a good choice of words.... this journey down misdirected/misinformed idealism is going to cost until it really hurts. Those of us who are quite well off will continue to do well, the suffering will come harshly to those just getting by and worse to those living in poverty. All these demands placed upon industry will always be passed down to the end consumer; fuel costs, pollution control costs, taxes, enviro fees, etc. all get added to the cost of production, mark-up (profit) is added usually by a percentage, and then the selling cost is determined.

Example, a nicknack now costs the producer $20.00 to make, the profit margin is 10% making the wholesale price $22.00. The retailer now adds his mark-up which is determined by operating costs and end profit margin. In this case lets use 35%. Now the nicknack is at $29.70, + 6% GST and in BC 7% PST. The final cost to the buyer is now $33.56.

If fuel prices go up along with taxes, enviro fees, and other infrastructure costs to cut pollution, the cost to the producer increases 10%, which is incredibly conservative. Now that $20.00 cost increases to $22.00, the wholesale cost is now $24.20 and because of additional operating expenses to the retailer, his mark-up increases as well, let's use an additional 5% which brings the retail selling price up to $33.88 ($24.20 x 40%) + GST and PST, the new cost to the end-user is $38.28, $4.72 higher than before (a difference of 14%). This increase isn't too big a deal for someone in the mid to high income range, but to those watching their pennies, it can really hurt. Some may say the answer is to tax industry more so we can give more to the poor, well then we just go through this cycle again which will, in the end, increase the cost to the end consumer.

There are so many implications to this but although it hurts industry and retailers in that people may not buy nicknacks anymore because they need to pay for all the higher costs for necessities such as food, gas, heat, rent, taxes, fees, etc.; the ones it always hurts the most will be the people at the lower end of the economic scale. Now what if this nicknack was something we all needed to purchase regularly?


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 221
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:36 pm
 


Tomorrow at dawn, if it is not raining I will talk to the Sun. That giant ball of fire has been getting hotter lately. It has given the hucksters a chance to make some big bucks.
Years of government grants have paid off for some fraudsters.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:54 pm
 


Once again this whole matter is based on the false assumption by the AGW crowd that CO2 forces climate rather than climate forces CO2.

It is BS pure and simple.

Meanwhile real polution SO, NOX, just plain soot, all the crap rsulting from burning plastic/tires goes neglected while the time and resources are wasted on this foolish CO2 limitation thing.

KYOTO is collapsing and the AGW crowd is panicking......their last great white hope to destroy western industrial society and rule the world is crumbling before their beady little eyes.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.