Readers of my blog will know I seem to gravitate to longer posts. Well I have found a kindred spirit in longer form blogging.
This blogger, "politiquevert" provides some serious factual evidence to rebut the Harper Cons rhetoric that Dion has done nothing while in Cabinet.
Quality research and a powerful posting. Give it a read. Here is the link: http://politiquevert.wordpress.com/2007/02/04/dions-environmental-footprint-on-the-government-of-canada-website/
Another update on Dion's environmental doings...check out the video clip on this site: http://whiletheearthburns.blogspot.com/2007/02/dions-environmental-cred-video.html
Props to Nicole Martel for posting it and bringing it to my attention.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteThere are some really good videos on Youtube that further shore up the case...
Search: "The Truth About Stephane Dion", "How do you like them Green Apples???", and "Stéphane Dion Challenges Conservative Government"
Cheers
No offense, but "quality research" is not a count of the number of press releases! I hope this is not Dion's only rebuttal evidence, or he is seriously in trouble.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to gauge Dion's record, it must be on whether or not he reduced greenhouse emissions. If he did, by what amount? As well, as the ads portray, it is the LPC record that will be the issue in the next election, not just Dion's little stint as environment minister.
In today's era if the government fails at something is it the minister's fault or the PM's?
ReplyDeleteHarper maintains an awful lot of control over his cabinet (even limiting their press time on several issues). Is the utter failure of Rona Ambrose his doing or hers?
I ask in regards to Dion in the former Liberal government. CO2 levels went up while he was environment minster, true. But was this because the PM would allow environmental issues on the front burner?
Or does it even matter?
I know if I'm a worker and had a headstrong boss not letting me do my job I'd hate to be held responsible years down the road. I can see how that could be frustrating.
eric - there is no doubt the Libs needed to do better on GHG emissions. They (Dion actually) did negotiate the cap levels on large emitters which is a major accomplishment oftern overlooked.
ReplyDeleteBut the Cons political positioning is they did nothing for 13 years. That is mere rhetoric that not supported by the evidence.
How could the Libs have done nothing when the Cons immediatley axed all the climate change programs they had just started? Then, in less than a year, the Cons discover the environment in polling results and move immediatley to reinstate the programs?
We need more intellectual integrity from politics at all levels and in all parties.
"They (Dion actually) did negotiate the cap levels on large emitters which is a major accomplishment oftern overlooked."
ReplyDeleteCan you please show me the evidence on this. From what I've read, these were INTENSITY-BASED targets which is much, much different than mandatory caps. Insenity-based targets are identical to the US approach - they do not lead to an overall reduction of greenhouse gases. If Dion negotiated an intensity-based approach, this is absolutely no accomplishment.
I agree that they didn't do "nothing". However, the evidence is clear that, despite whatever efforts the LPC had (great or otherwise), greenhouse emissions went up well beyond the Kyoto targets and it was intellectually dishonest to state that we were going to meet the Kyoto targets.
eric - you are right I understand they were intensity based limits. That means there were, for example in oil sands, specific limits of GHG per barrel but no limits on the number of barrels.
ReplyDeleteThat was the Klein government position that was adopted by the feds.
The interesting question in the Stelmach government's concern over "managing growth" - are GHG emissions a limiting factor in growth management?
If so - one wonders how that plays out in terms of a royalty review and the push for new and cleaner technology applications.
Depends on how serious the federal government is on a mandatory cap of greenhouse emissions? If it continues to be an intensity-based approach, there is no limiting factor.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about the royalty review, but interesting whether that will be integrated into the discussion.
Royalty concern is strictly provincial in scope. The environment is a shared fed-prov responsibility. GHG is a hot topic for feds and Alberta for sure.
ReplyDeleteThe Alberta and Canada Environment Ministers are meeting very soon. When Renner and Baird are meeting I wonder how this will all integrate or disintegrate and different concerns each will have over the timing relating to a federal election soon and a provincial election in spirng of 2008..
That's a good point, but it'd be great if Alberta (without being forced by the federal government) could tie in GHG into the royalty review. For example, the royalties will be set a higher percentage, say X% - however, the vast majority of this amount will be invested in environmental technologies, such as the one you described in your recent La Presse article.
ReplyDelete