Ok I can’t resist, given the performance of John Baird, posing as the bright light of the Keystone Conservatives yesterday. First he faxes his speech to the Opposition, then he does a photo op with a bunch of light bulbs and tries to diverts the attention from the insufficiently and uncertainty of his emissions policy. He still tries to compete today with O’Connor for attention, not to mention the ability to make it up on the fly.
The invitation to make changing light bulb jokes about the Keystone Kons performance is too much to resist. So here is one. How many of Harper’s Keystone Kons does it take to change a light bulb? None! They would rather stay in the dark.
I see the Keystone Kons believe outlawing the “old” bulb is apparently the equivalent of a save the world policy pronouncement. Since it will not come into effect until 2012 it breeds a potential and begs for a whole new genre of light bulb jokes. The Bairdisms is what they will be called. They will be based, not on how many it takes to change a light bulb, but how long will it take Baird to change one??? Apparently 5 years given his aggressive implementation plans. Yes sir that is a dramatic and decisive U-turn on enlightened environmental policy if ever there was one.
I can just hear the Jack Layton NDP minority government in 2012 chastising the Kons saying they had 5 years to change the lights (before they went out) and they “didn’t get it done.”
On a more serious note, I expect there is a feud that is now brewing between Stelmach of Alberta and Harper, of no fixed address, over who is going to determine environmental policy on climate change. It is a shared jurisdiction but my bets are on Ed not Steve. Alberta is light years ahead of the Feds on climate change, politically and policy-wise. I fully expect Alberta to take more effective and decisive initiatives, even with the interim intensity targets, as they occupy and dominate the climate change agenda and the emission regulation area.
Harper is sitting on a powder keg and giving of sparks in Alberta these days. He is just lucky we are such creatures of political habit out here. Expect Albertans of progressive beliefs and true conservative values to stay home and maybe even start voting Green in protest in the next election.
I am concerned about Mr. Ed and crew. He seems to be solving the climate change issue by shipping our bitumen to the US (something Mr. Stelmach promised would not happen). The US can worry about the emmissions when they process the bitumen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Harper seriously lacks credibility and capability on climate change.
I don't believe it is entirely correct to say he (Stelmach) is shipping our bitumen down south. The Conoco deal was announced before he became Premier. I think it would set a dangerous precedent to "backdate" an Alberta-Value-Added initiative.
ReplyDeleteWe can't have it both ways. There are a number of petrochemical projects (upgraders and such) that are in various stages of planning and construction near Edmonton. And some people are already flipping out over that, saying there is too much activity here. Sigh...
According to the liberals, the government can just snap its fingers and reduce GHGs by 40% in the next 8 months - and this can be done somehow without destroying the economy. Oh right, the job spinoffs in the alternative energy area will compensate for jobs lost in other areas. Yes, any given worker can simply pick up and leave their job, be immediately trained, and have a job waiting for him or her in a green company.
ReplyDeleteBaird's lightbulb announcement is almost as grand as Dion setting up a meeting on Kyoto (when nobody thought he could do it, but he did).
As for Alberta, if one would accept the Liberal private bill to reduce GHG emissions by 40% in 8 months, the Alberta oilsands would be the first business sector to collapse. As such, I highly doubt any decreased support for the CPC (and the polls again and again demonstrate this).
Eric,
ReplyDeleteNice sweeping generalizations about everything and nothing in general.
With all due respect, an intelligent, actionable plan on the environment holds industry to account - the biggest polluters should pay, wouldn't you agree this is a fair assesment? Why is it then the Kons have issued soft caps, underwhelming targets that give massive leeway to industry (particularly big oil) and no meaningful results?
Why is it that other European nations are implementig far more agressive environmental plans with no apparent doom on their economic radars? This government has cancelled projects on innovation and technology, continued to prop up the oil and natural resources industries - is it any wonder you bring up the "retraining worker" dilemma? I have an answer, they can stay home and look after their kids because they have no daycare spaces, and they can nurse themselves back to heath then due to the longer wait times (since its only down to one guarantee) etc. etc.... such a good government well founded in reality 'gettin' things done'...eh??? pffft!!!
Canadians are not asking for miracles, but they do expect at least something to be done, not have a bunch of morons for THE SECOND TIME table something that is clearly a pile of CCRAP!! And... you cannot keep saying "13 years of liberal blah blah blah"... it will be over 18 years before we meet Kyoto targets, yeah wow that's soooo much better!
You (mistakenly) assert that the polls are demonstrating the CPC's support. I know the crack is a hard addiction to break, but maybe if you held off for a while you'd be able to read a bit better.
alberta report,
ReplyDeleteYou say "the biggest polluters should pay". Well, the biggest polluters are you and I. That is, individual consumers.
You can regulate our domestic industry into extinction... and then, providing anyone has any personal income left, they will then buy what the need from China, Russia, etc.
Or, you can set achievable targets, and then gradually rachet them up. Nobody training for weight-lifting tries to lift 500 lbs their first day at the gym. This is no different.
Alberta Report,
ReplyDeleteMy arguments were primarily aimed at LIBERALS who have the audacity to criticize the Conservative plan. I am sure that you would ask those same hard questions to the LPC - remember, the party that did not have hard caps either. Remember the party that had GHG emissions go up 35% under its reign. Again, I don't like talking about the libs 13 long years (we should be focusing on the future), but it is absolutely necessary when they in turn criticize the government's bills (in other words, "here is our plan compared to your lack of an action plan"). The CPC is at least realistic and THEY ARE ACTUALLY TAKING ACTIVE STEPS on the environment while at the same time being intellectually honest that we will not destroy our economy in the process.
European countries are not energy superpowers. Seriously, is it simply a generalization about nothing to state that if the oilsands had to reduce GHG on an absolute basis in 8 months that that business sector would collapse? It is basic commonsense. One only needs to examine the independent economist reports.
"I know the crack is a hard addiction to break, but maybe if you held off for a while you'd be able to read a bit better."
Your ad hominem attack adptly illustrates the desparation in your arguments.
The last few days and the Baird Clean Error Act makes their well worn chant and rant of "13 years of Liberals doing nothing" boring and laughable.
ReplyDeleteBesides, it is only only partly true not the whole truth. the whole truth is too inconvenient for the Keystone Kons so why utter it.
Canada only signed on to Kyoto in 1997 or 1998 right? Given the worst case, how could it be 13 years of "not getting it done" eric...do the math! Then start telling the truth.
Lets look at some key consdierations around the Canadian political parties and their leadership vacuum - especially in the Libs and the Kons. That had to be sorted out before any serious policy directions or destinations could be set. The leadership issues was resolved 5 years ago when the Kons selected Harper - and 5 months ago for the Libs with Dion.
What have the Kons actually done about Climate Change for the past five years of stable leadership? They spent most of the time in Full Monty denial of the science and the exisitance of climate change.
Could it be also said of the Kons that they didn't get it done. It that because they believed nothing had to be done about the environment - there was no real problem! The real problem facing Canada according to the Kons was stull like the need for a 1% GST cut.
We have had electoral uncertainty in recent years resulting in 2 minority governments and it looks like a third one is on the way.
We finally had the Libs under Martin's minority government put forth some policy and programs on climate change but only to lose the election due to Adscam.
Then we had the Kons get minority government status and they decided Canada's problems could all be solved by dealing with only 5 issues, the environment not even being one of them.
Then the Kons proceeded to dismantle the entire set of Liberal environment initiatives in the first 3 months of taking power - WHY - because they were Liberal ideas!
In the last 3 months the Kons have reinstated most of the former Lib climate change policies and eco-programs but wrapped up them all together with their own repackaging and spent time trying to convince us they actually "got it" on the environment all along. BUT their first Clean Air Act said they would not really get started to "get at it" until 2050. Pretty decisive all right.
Harper's Keystone Kons must think
Canadians are the stupidest people on earth. You guys must be getting dizzy given the ways you have been spinning the facts and denying the truth for so long now and on so many fronts.
Sorry I should be more clear. They did nothing for 8 years (well, in addition to 5 yrs when Canada was not a signatory of Kyoto).
ReplyDeleteWhy did the liberals wait until 2005?!? Why did it take them so long? To quote the Deputy Leader of the LPC, why didn't they get the job done? Why did the LPC force Canadians to inherit a 35% increase in GHG emissions? The LPC has no credibilty on this issue whatsoever. The polls thus far show that Canadians do not think either the CPC or the LPC can properly address the environment. The government has a duty to Canadians to expose the failures of the previous government to ensure this new government does not repeat them.
To eric @ 11:31
ReplyDeleteI am angry that Chretien went and signed on to Kyoto unilaterally as PM without his own government knowing he was going to do so. He signed up and and then turned mute and inert around anything close to a reasonable response to meeting the Kyoto obligations he undertook on our behalf. Why?
This is unacceptable. The other infuriating reality in that timeframe was the influence the Chretien PMO had on the post 1995 refeendum period to buy Quebec loyalty with Chretien's Sponsorship program.
That fiasco turned into Adscam and scuppered Martin. It shows jthe kind of consequences we "enjoy" because of how much power we centralize in our Prime Ministers -and how petty they can become as people.
I have already answered why the Libs "waited until 2005" as in my previous post. I have explained why the Kons waited until spring of 2007 there too.
BTW I see Bev Oda is making the same kind of Sponsorship Program mistakes Chretien did by politicizing the process and dooing it without the legislation in place. that means it is happening without the checks and balances processes needed to be sure it is not paid out fraudently to friends yet again. This time to the friends of the Kons.
I thought you guys would have learned something from Adsam...but I guess not!