[KaNaDiAn]

I get a kick outta people whining about money... I'm not sure of how much it would actually take to implement Kyoto, but whining about cash is sad in my opinion. What say, every 3 months.. everybody in the country gets taxed 10$.. thats like 1.2 billion a year that could be put toward installing clean energy technologies. Make the corporations pay for a percentage every 3 months too. At least that would be thinking positive about the situation. I'm sick of all the negativity towards Kyoto. Beesides the fiscally obsessed, it is only ap ositive act. Even if there ISNT such a thing as global warming.. at lest we are cleaning up the environment and making a healthier atmosphere for us and our children to live in. The money save on Health care costs treating respiratory illness could be thrown into other things also.. people are stupid for being against this treaty. All for the sake of the holy economy.

[Rev_Blair]

The really funny thing is that Kyoto will most likely allow Quebec and Manitoba to become have provinces because of their water resources. To make hydrogen you need electricity and water, something Manitoba and Quebec have in abundance. That will cut the amount of cash that Ontario and Alberta have to send to Ottawa. They would very likely save enough to fund a project that stores greenhouse gas underground.

The thing that requires a long-term outlook...something that doesn't fit the myopic view of CEOs and bean-counters.

[polemarch1]

$1:

They would very likely save enough to fund a project that stores greenhouse gas underground.

Sounds good. You seem to know more about this then me. Still what would the enviromental effects be underground? I assume having all that crap down can't be too good for the soil, ground water and anything that lives there.

[Rev_Blair]

Actually it is suprisingly neutral as long as the guidelines are followed. It isn't a random thing and it does cost more than a dollar.

[jerrysb]

we could always advocate conservation. Use less energy through greater efficiency, differant lifestyle so less money in the future has to be spent on energy so people have more money to spend on other things. Best way to increase efficiency? Raise taxes on gas fo exemple, then give the money received on tax cuts. Money talks. Another way would be to rely on public transportation. There are many more ways to achieve these goals. We can't and shouldn't rely on one way to reduce emmisions.

The sad truth is that we live in a counsumer system, which means people would rather spend the money today than invest it for the future. Then they complain that the gov't didn't do enough, or that the gov't was the problem(right wing rhetoric, ring a bell).

[AdamNF]

$1:

It takes a lot of cheap energy to live the lifestyle that we do here in Canada, I believe we're the highest per capita consumers of energy in the world

Do you mean electricity

[Rosco]

It takes a lot of cheap energy to live the lifestyle that we do here in Canada, I believe we're the highest per capita consumers of energy in the world. If we reduced our energy use by a significant degree it'd make things tougher for everyone and it would probably no longer be viable to live in many areas of the country.

[mike2277]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

The thing that requires a long-term outlook...something that doesn't fit the myopic view of CEOs and bean-counters.

.....or politicians that must seek re-election every four years.

[Mukluk]

There is a difference between imposing strict environmental regulations, and telling companies that you are going to impose some kind of regulation...but we're not quite sure what the rules are, what impact it will have on you, etc etc. But please, come invest billions in my country and we'll work out the regs later.

Talk about myopic. Corporations are not myopic when it comes to long term profitability, and making up rules or providing a statement that rules are coming, we're just not sure what they are - doesn't fit well into long range revenue forecasts.

Environmental regulations are great, I am a big fan. Kyoto is not the solution, it is too vague to drive meaningful change while maintaining an attractive business climate.

m

[Rev_Blair]

Kyoto isn't vague at all, it's a set of goals based on each country's past consumption. There are some guidelines as to what constitutes acheiving those goals (imaginary forests don't count for much), but how a country meets those goals is up to them.

The Liberals have been very weak on coming up with how to meet the goals, I agree. Some of that is because of the US not signing on, putting the whole deal in question. Some of that is because of the opposition from provincial governments, especially Alberta and Ontario. Some of that is because of opposition from business, especially business that contributes to the Liberal Party.

Most of it is a lack of leadership though. We already know the basics of what needs to be done to meet the targets, we already have a lot of the science and technology that will allow us to do so. The fact is that the vast majority of the Canadian people are for meeting the Kyoto goals and it's time the federal government led the way.

We use a lot of energy because of our clmate. We use a lot of energy because we are such a small population in such a large country. Mostly we use a lot of energy because we are lazy and because we are rich.

My suggestions? Drop the PST and GST on all insulation and vapour barrier products. Change the building codes to easily allow for double walls with 24 inch on center spacing. Offer property tax rebates for home improvement projects that increase energy efficiency (ie insulated and sealed unheated porches, landscaping that serves as a weather break, etc.). Make municipalities begin replacing their wasteful lighting with more efficient kinds. Make public and business building shut off their lights at night. Give insurance and/or tax rebates for efficient vehicles. Provide infrastructure money for public transport. Tax the living crap out of gas guzzlers not required for business. Insist on the use of eco-deisel. Begin a public education campaign encouraging people to conserve.

[AdamNF]

I'm all for Kyoto. Laws that force companies to change there ways will hurt those companies, change doesnÂ’t come cheap, and people will loose there jobs and the economy will go a down, but who cares. they environment is more important, the economy will rebound.

[Rev_Blair]

Actually we can use conservation products and alternative products as an economic engine, so the long-term outlook is actually better than what we have right now. Because of our climate Canada already produces some of the best windows and doors on earth, for instance, yet relatively we do very little exporting of these products.

Same thing with hydrogen. You need water and electricity to produce hydrogen. Our hydro-electric technology is a natural.

It will hurt some of the old industries (oil, etc), but a lot of them can find new niches. Think of it this way...when cars started replacing the horse and carriage, coach builders became car builders.

[AdamNF]

Following are speaking notes from an address by Brian Tobin, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador on Churchill Falls in Toronto at the Empire Club:

$1:

Since full power came on stream from Churchill Falls in 1976, Hydro- Quebec has received benefits averaging about $600 million a year. Newfoundland and Labrador has received benefits that averaged $23 million a year. Recently, that has slipped to $16 million a year.

Now maybe i'm looking at this the wrong way, but why its Quebec making 30 times more from our resorces then we are. I think if you looked in the dictionary under "Screwed" or "One who gets screwed" I think you would see a map of Newfoundland. WERE GETTING SCREWED!

Full speach Here

[neverdiplomatic]

AdamNF AdamNF:

Following are speaking notes from an address by Brian Tobin, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador on Churchill Falls in Toronto at the Empire Club:

$1:

Since full power came on stream from Churchill Falls in 1976, Hydro- Quebec has received benefits averaging about $600 million a year. Newfoundland and Labrador has received benefits that averaged $23 million a year. Recently, that has slipped to $16 million a year.

Now maybe i'm looking at this the wrong way, but why its Quebec making 30 times more from our resorces then we are. I think if you looked in the dictionary under "Screwed" or "One who gets screwed" I think you would see a map of Newfoundland. WERE GETTING SCREWED!

Full speach Here

Whoa...this is scary Adam...I'm agreeing with ya! Wholeheartedly. Newfoundland has been getting the shaft for years, IMHO.

[1Peg]

karra karra:

Us Ontarians 'hate' you people in Alberta. I remember hearing the story about you having all the oil, the people in Ontario having none and it was winter time and the only words of comfort from y'all were:

[align=center]"Let the eastern bastards freeze."[/align]

Some superior attitude or what?

Didn't most of those Albertans come from Ontario and points east? Like Hongcouver yeah?

I was born in Ottawa, my father moved the family to Alberta in the 70`s to work for the oilsands, i have kind of followed in his steps in the oilfield.

Currently spending my winters with Flint Energy out of Calgary.

I dont understand why people are upset, we as people want jobs, and Alberta has alot of jobs avalible, if you want to work in the oilfield.