NationStates Jolt Archive

So after an election in which the Martin Liberals were rightfully criticized for taking few meaningful steps on climate change, apparently the Harper Tories now plan to do even less.

Like all announcements that the government is embarassed about, this one was buried just before a holiday, in the hopes that no-one would notice. You missed it? Check the press release here. (http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newsreleases/2006/200609_e.htm) Or the news story here. (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/05042006/3/canada-tories-plan-cuts-climate-change-programs.html)

Now apparently, they plan to address this problem with a "Made-in-Canada" solution. What this solution is remains an absolute mystery. The Environment, let alone Climate Change, was not considered an important enough issue to warrant being included in Harper's 5 Priorities. (http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=41) And as this speech (http://www.ec.gc.ca/minister/speeches/2006/060331_s_e.htm) shows, our new Minister of the Environment doesn't really even understand the difference between air pollution, and climate change.

So what gives? The Tories had 13 years in opposition to develop a meaningful strategy on this issue, and the best they can come up with is to cut the existing programs without presenting any credible alternatives? (And apparently more cuts are on the way). Is this not a pressing enough issue to warrant some form of immediate action?

Granted, the One Tonne Challenge was a waste of money. Anyone who was going to voluntarirly take steps to reduce their emissions had already done so. It was past time to start busting out the carrots and the sticks and giving people sharp financial incentives and disincentives. Make the mechanisms as market-based as you like; it's called internalizing externalities. But the research programs were critical; after all, it is research, not rhetoric that is going to help us deal with this problem.

But rhetoric is all we are getting. Apparently we are not going to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, we are just going to do absolutely nothing to meet our commitments. One of the worst pieces of political sophistry I have seen, and one for which we will undoubtably lose further respect in the international community, and earn the scorn of our children and grandchildren.

But rhetoric is all we are getting. Apparently we are not going to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, we are just going to do absolutely nothing to meet our commitments. One of the worst pieces of political sophistry I have seen, and one for which we will undoubtably lose further respect in the international community, and earn the scorn of our children and grandchildren.Not likely. Canadian internal politics don't interest the world enough for it to have that negative an impact on Canada's image.

Well, vote for someone else next time, I suppose...

Not likely. Canadian internal politics don't interest the world enough for it to have that negative an impact on Canada's image.

The internal politics no. But if we break our international commitments, we aren't exactly going to be winning ourselves friends overseas.

Even though we're still a couple of years away from the target year, I read Harper's government already gave up on reaching our target of reducing greenhouse emissions. They even publicly announced it. Well, if your government is going to do nothing about it, of course we're not going to reach the target!

The internal politics no. But if we break our international commitments, we aren't exactly going to be winning ourselves friends overseas.Unless it gets featured in the news here, I doubt anyone will really notice. Sad but true.

Well, vote for someone else next time, I suppose...

I didn't vote for them this time. In fact, 65% of those who voted didn't. 65% of voters voted for a party that had some kind of climate change plan. Yet will still got a Harper government. One of the virtues of our First-Past-The-post system.

Well, at least the Conservatives are keeping that promise. It gives the impression that they're still in shock: "Holy shit! We really won! Now what do we do?"

I didn't vote for them this time. In fact, 65% of those who voted didn't. 65% of voters voted for a party that had some kind of climate change plan. Yet will still got a Harper government. One of the virtues of our First-Past-The-post system.Plurality really just doesn't work out well.

So how receptive are Canadians to the idea of changing to, say, an approval voting system?

Where should I put the 'vote of no confidence' on my calendar?


Conservatives (In America) and Tories (In Canada) just seem to become more and more degenerated with each passing election cycle.

Well, at least the Conservatives are keeping that promise. It gives the impression that they're still in shock: "Holy shit! We really won! Now what do we do?"

That's part of the problem. They did not really promise anything. First, they promised to scrap Kyoto, cause it "just wasn't working". Then they backed down under pressure, and said they would work within it. They just never said what they would actually do ... and that is exactly what they seem to be planning to do ... nothing. They won't formally bow out of Kyoto but they won't do anything to meet our commitments. It's a cowardly approach. They don't have the balls to say they don't believe in Climate Change, they just pretend to care about it and do nothing.

Plurality really just doesn't work out well.

So how receptive are Canadians to the idea of changing to, say, an approval voting system?

This is a bit of a digression but ...

What is an approval voting system?

And what kind of plurality system are you talking about?

I didn't vote for them this time. In fact, 65% of those who voted didn't. 65% of voters voted for a party that had some kind of climate change plan. Yet will still got a Harper government. One of the virtues of our First-Past-The-post system.

Well, I THOUGHt they'd do something. I know better now.

Well, I THOUGHt they'd do something. I know better now.

I actually thought they might do something too. I don't know what I was thinking ...

Well, I THOUGHt they'd do something. I know better now.
I expected worse from them. Somehow I thought they would goin the opposite direction of Kyoto.

I expected worse from them. Somehow I thought they would goin the opposite direction of Kyoto.


I think that is what they are doing. They are just pretending that they aren't.

Not likely. Canadian internal politics don't interest the world enough for it to have that negative an impact on Canada's image.

Indeed. Canada could go neo-facist, declare that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, proclaim the West to be the Great Satan, and pursue a pogrom of ethnic cleansing and no one would notice, let alone care.

Indeed. Canada could go neo-facist, declare that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, proclaim the West to be the Great Satan, and pursue a pogrom of ethnic cleansing and no one would notice, let alone care.

Yes, and monkeys stole Bush's credit card. :rolleyes:

I hope that was sarcasm.

Seriously:

Erm... yeah... the whole world would care!

Yes, and monkeys stole Bush's credit card. :rolleyes:

I hope that was sarcasm.

Seriously:

Erm... yeah... the whole world would care!

Er... my point was that if Canada basically decided that the rest of the West was evil, no one would know or care. And if they did, it wouldn't damage Canada's reputation nearly so bas as Bush has damaged America's.

And where are those monkeys? I must hire them to steal Bill Gates's credit cards! And, especially, his debit cards!

Not likely. Canadian internal politics don't interest the world enough for it to have that negative an impact on Canada's image.

Unless it's about baby seals...

Er... my point was that if Canada basically decided that the rest of the West was evil, no one would know or care. And if they did, it wouldn't damage Canada's reputation nearly so bas as Bush has damaged America's.

And where are those monkeys? I must hire them to steal Bill Gates's credit cards! And, especially, his debit cards!

Canada is a government. With lots of allies. Of course it would getattention.

Plurality really just doesn't work out well.

So how receptive are Canadians to the idea of changing to, say, an approval voting system?

I agree. It's my personal gripe of Canadian Politics. It's time to trade in the horse and buggy in our garage to something with a motor in it.

What exactly is an approval voting system? Is it a variant on percentage of population and voter-lists? At any rate, dealing out seats in the house of commons on percentage of popular vote would be far more effective in dealing with issues such as the environment and make parliament more amenable to compromise and negotiation.

I hope that all sensible governments decide to do nothing about climate change.

At least until we have the option of leaving the Earth when they screw it up.

We cannot fix the whole world. Until we can control the output of the sun, we just need to sit tight, and enjoy the ride.

Somebody better get NASA back to work on Breakthrough Propulsion Physics, we need the hyperdrive NOW!

Also very similar to the idea of not pulling your parachute ripcord because, hey, you're going to fall anyway, and if you wait long enough, you just might sprout wings.

Unless it's about baby seals...

In which case Paul McCartney and Brigitte Bardot sit up and take notice.

Oh, and Bono seems to pay us a visit every now and then too to tell us what we should and should not be doing.

They are conservatives... what did you expect?

They are conservatives... what did you expect?

Better.

Better.
Better is in the middle is what I say. :D

Also very similar to the idea of not pulling your parachute ripcord because, hey, you're going to fall anyway, and if you wait long enough, you just might sprout wings.

A better analogy would be

someone hands you a backpack. you put it on. they push you out of the plane at 2000 feet up.

you assume that the pack is a parachute. you pull the cord.

it is really a rocket engine with a gyroscope, so that it always points towards the ground.

you speed up even more, and leave a crater.

if you had not pulled the cord, you had a very slight chance, nearly impossible, but still there, of surviving, painfully yes, but surviving.

pulling the cord ensured your death.

trying to change the climate of an entire planet without knowing what one is doing is a crap shoot.

no one knows what the outcome will be.

no one.

trying to change the climate of an entire planet without knowing what one is doing is a crap shoot.

no one knows what the outcome will be.

no one.

If no-one knows what the outcome will be, is that not a stronger argument for restricting CO2 emissions? Not changing the climate is what restricting emissions is all about.

A better analogy would be

someone hands you a backpack. you put it on. they push you out of the plane at 2000 feet up.

you assume that the pack is a parachute. you pull the cord.

Okay, I can actually agree with that.. we don't know what it is for sure.

it is really a rocket engine with a gyroscope, so that it always points towards the ground.

you speed up even more, and leave a crater.

if you had not pulled the cord, you had a very slight chance, nearly impossible, but still there, of surviving, painfully yes, but surviving.

pulling the cord ensured your death.

trying to change the climate of an entire planet without knowing what one is doing is a crap shoot.

no one knows what the outcome will be.

Hold it.. you're saying that it's a rocket, but that no-one knows. Your own analogy is self-contradictory.

Perhaps the best analogy would be you have on a back-pack and are falling. The ripcord may open a parachute, it may set off an explosive, or it may just open the seams on the backpack and if you're lucky you can grab the fabric and hope spreading it out slows you down a bit before you bounce.

Given that nobody knows for sure what might happen, but that we do know continuing on our present course is very likely to mean our insides become outsides, do we pull or not?

Me, I'd take the chance, after all, if it's an explosive, I'm no more dead than I was before anyway, and if it's not, then I've got a much better chance of survival.