babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Hargrove blasts GHG regulations for auto companies

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hargrove blasts GHG regulations for auto companies
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 03 October 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buzz Hargrove yet again proves that he no longer has a progressive bone in his body He is slamming the Harper government for being too tough on environmental regulations for the big auto companies. It is to weep, read all about it here

quote:
The Conservative government will cripple Ontario's auto industry and put Canadians out of work if it moves ahead with plans to impose new environmental regulations on domestic carmakers, says union leader Buzz Hargrove.

"This idea of putting in stiff regulations that the companies have to meet or face a penalty is going to cause major damage to an industry that's already on its knees," Hargrove said in an interview.

Conservatives meanwhile see a huge upside to coming down hard on Canada's worst greenhouse gas emitters, with voters increasingly worried about the environment.

"Given the growth of the Canadian economy over the last 20 plus years how can anyone compellingly argue that sensible, effective environmental regulations hurt the economy?" said one Tory insider.

"Such regulations have been coming forward for 20-plus years and the economy grows, plus individuals benefit."


Harper more progressive than Hargrove? I never thought we'd see the day, but it has come The Liberals are welcome to keep Buzz forever! What a disgrace to the progressive movement he is - confirms every bogus stereotype of union leaders only looking out for their narrow self-interest, even if it ends up wrecking the planet for the rest of us.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 03 October 2006 01:15 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's not the worst of it. Dalton McGuinty has come out and warned Harper off any emission standards that will hurt the Ontario economy as well. Who in God's name advises these two dip shits?

Why are they criticizing a policy they haven't seen yet? Can they be so out of touch and so, so fucking stupid? First, Harper and Kirsti Allie would never impose any real or true limitations. They would only pretend to as did Martin with "voluntary" emission standards. So McGuinty and Buzzed could have kept their big, stupid mouths shut.

Now, Harper can stand back and say, "well, we wanted to implement tough standards, but Ontario Liberals and unions said 'no', so we are stuck."

They have just handed Harper a get out of jail free card on the one issue where he was completely vulnerable and ready to sink. Fucking assholes. Pardon my languagebut these two men are beyond stupid.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 03 October 2006 02:11 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Liberal, Conservative... Whats the difference?

added to agree with the post below mine. I'd love to see Layton come out after Buzzyboy for this

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 03 October 2006 02:11 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I believe Minister Ambrose is going to bring in mandatory GHG regulations for both the auto and oil and gas sectors - I'm sure they won't go far enough and will have a very long phase-in period, but it's still way better than the Liberal voluntary approach. Hargrove wouldn't have felt the need to commit political suicide by urging Harper to be more right-wing on the environment, unless he knew the regs would have some teeth in them.

McGuinty on the other hand doesn't surprise me one bit. Jack Layton and the NDP should not hesitate to blast both Dalton and Buzz for their dinosaur attitudes about climate change and fossil fuels.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 October 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you sure the real story isn't here (from the same link):

quote:
Already, carmakers are grumbling about reports that suggest the oil and gas industry won't be subject to strict limits on their greenhouse gas emissions.

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 03 October 2006 03:00 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you sure the real story isn't here (from the same link):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already, carmakers are grumbling about reports that suggest the oil and gas industry won't be subject to strict limits on their greenhouse gas emissions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I seriously doubt it - Ambrose and Harper would kill any chances of a Tory majority by letting Alberta oil and gas off the hook while cracking down on the Ontario auto sector. Ambrose has been quite clear in recent media interviews that the Liberal approach of "asking nicely for industry to clean up" is over, and that there will be mandatory regulations for the oil and gas and auto sectors. California is doing it, many other US states will follow suit, so Canada should get ahead of the curve now and that's exactly what I expect Harper and Ambrose to announce.

Again, I expect the Tory GHG regs to be weak and not come into force for many years, but that means we need tougher measures that come into force sooner. Most scientists agree that we have 10-20 years at most to start reversing the GHG growth trends before we do irreversible damage to the planet. Buzz is an utter and complete disgrace to oppose these measures, and I hope unionist and other progressive babblers, and CAW members, will join me in condemning his statements on this issue.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 October 2006 03:13 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

Buzz is an utter and complete disgrace to oppose these measures, and I hope unionist and other progressive babblers, and CAW members, will join me in condemning his statements on this issue.

WCL, I will happily condemn Hargrove for opposing measures aimed at protecting the environment. Before I issue my condemnation, though, could you let me know what those measures are?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 03 October 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We'll know for sure when the Green Plan is announced, but there have been some indications from leaks in the past few days. Details remain sketchy, but the basic gist is found in this article.

quote:

It marks the first time carmakers will face regulations. To date, Canada has either had a written voluntary agreement with the industry to meet emissions goals or an understanding that carmakers would follow U.S. standards.

The ultimate goal, say insiders, is to bring Canada in line with North American-wide standards after 2010, that will most likely adopt California’s pioneering clean-air laws.

“They don’t want Canada to become a dumping ground (for inefficient cars) in North America,” said one Conservative insider familiar with the file.

“Canada has to have regulations that are valuable, enforceable and implementable — to do what they’re supposed to do.”

The car companies, meanwhile, say they’ve only heard whispers of what the government is planning, and will arrive in Ottawa for the meeting with some trepidation. One source said the industry is already drafting a statement that says it will hold the government to its 2005 voluntary agreement, which is supposed to run out in 2010.

The expectation is that Ambrose will agree to live with the current situation until 2010, but will require the industry to come up with even better reductions in emissions in the meantime.


Basically, all the gov't is apparently going to do is to ask automakers to meet the California standards by 2010 - which they'd all have to do anyway in order to sell cars in the biggest market in the USA. Why are Buzz and Dalton setting their hair on fire over this minimal step forward?

I saw Buzz on "Mike Duffy Live" today and he said the problem was that the Japanese automakers do a lot better in the marketplace than Ford, GM, etc with the tougher standards. But instead of the obvious response - force the US automakers to clean up their act so they can compete - he calls for the enviro standards to be rolled back!!! He sounded just like any industry shill trying to use scare tactics to stop tougher enviro regs.

BTW, does anybody have a link to Dalton McGuinty's comments on this?


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 03 October 2006 03:38 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Anyone who thinks Harper is doing anything other than lying through his teeth as far as helping the environment goes is a damn fool. Harper and his big oil buddies don't give a flying fuck about the environment. If he can put on a facade that makes people beleive otherwise, as well as inflict damage upon a progressive foe's livlihood (Buzz) then you can be damn sure he'll do that. But help the environment? Ha! Give me a fucking break.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 03 October 2006 04:49 PM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Isn't Buzz suppose to represent the auto workers whose jobs could be at stake and not the enviromental movement - in my union days I always thought that the union leaders were suppose to stand up for their members well being and not necessarily good public policy.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 03 October 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Isn't Buzz suppose to represent the auto workers whose jobs could be at stake and not the enviromental movement - in my union days I always thought that the union leaders were suppose to stand up for their members well being and not necessarily good public policy.

Yeah, I suppose that argument makes sense if you assume union members don't breathe the air, or depend on our environment for their very existence, like the rest of us do Ask the IWA union members in BC who will all lose their forestry jobs for 100 years because of the mountain pine beetle, or fishery workers who won't have any salmon runs to feed their families, all the ski resorts which won't be opening due to warmer winters, etc, about job impacts of global warming!

The economic devastation that climate change is already wreaking, which will get much worse over the comind decades, will make any minor job disruptions caused by measures to reduce GHG emissions look like a drop in the bucket. Of course, we need a comprehensive green car strategy as the NDP has proposed, to help CAW workers make that transition, but to argue aganist cutting GHG emissions is just not acceptable, whether you are a union leader, corporate CEO or politician. There are no jobs if we don't have a planet fit to live on!

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 03 October 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Politics101:
Isn't Buzz suppose to represent the auto workers whose jobs could be at stake and not the enviromental movement - in my union days I always thought that the union leaders were suppose to stand up for their members well being and not necessarily good public policy.

That is a very narrow-minded understanding of the potential of union leaders. I think that Buzz could easily stand up and say he supports progressive steps to clean up environmental standards assuming that he does so while continuing to demand that more unionized jobs be created while our economy shifts into one which isn't so intent on destroying the environment.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 03 October 2006 05:19 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To coin a phrase, there are no jobs on a dead planet. The whole jobs vs environment dichotomy is soo nineteen eighties, there is a huge potential growth market for greener technology, electrics cars and buses to start with, etc, but it's up to union leaders, membership, venture capitalists, consumers and yes, government, to get together and invest in it first. The biggest payoffs wouldn't come till later alas, but that's how real capitalism is supposed to work and it's better than the alternatives.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
IgnoramusMaximus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11551

posted 03 October 2006 05:19 PM      Profile for IgnoramusMaximus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Politics101:
Isn't Buzz suppose to represent the auto workers whose jobs could be at stake and not the enviromental movement - in my union days I always thought that the union leaders were suppose to stand up for their members well being and not necessarily good public policy.

Then Buzz should be all for super-tough environmental and fuel efficiency regulations which would force the Canadian auto industry to produce vehicles for tommorrow and maybe even to become a world-leading center of production of such vehicles which will soon be in wild demand everywhere.

In the long term the oil prices have no way to go but up and Buzz and CAW would be smart to get in ahead of the game and get a massive competetive edge.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 03 October 2006 05:37 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just saw Hargrove on Duffy as well. He criticized a California-style approach, saying that state had led the attack on the North American auto industry.

His proposed alternative appeared to be to offer incentives to those driving older, less efficient vehicles to buy newer cars that are more efficient: 'renewing the fleet' faster to eliminate the 'gas-guzzlers.'


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 October 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:
Actually, I believe Minister Ambrose is going to bring in mandatory GHG regulations for both the auto and oil and gas sectors...

What makes you think that?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 03 October 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is possible she will, but you can be rest assured they will be weak and meaningless. All the Harpercrites are concerned about is a little green washing to polish their well earned anti-environment image before they force an election and stupid Buzz and Dalton are hell bent on helping them. Stupider people there seldom are.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 03 October 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry for the double-post, but now look at this headline:

McGuinty, Hargrove slams plans to regulate car manufacturing industry

Suddenly the anti-earth conservatives are environmental heros. I don't want to keep going on about it but I am just astounded at how stupid those two could be.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 03 October 2006 06:14 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The tougher the environmental standards, and regulations are, the better. Unionized workers that still have jobs, because of an established, green car industry, will appreciate the foresight. Not to mention the fact that one of the reasons the North American car industry is in so much trouble, is because it's so out-dated in it's technological and marketing approach. It's products that rely largely on their "patriotic" appeal, of being made in Canada or the US, by domestic workers, yet happen to lack any product appeal compared to Japanese or European imports. If the North American car industry, and the unions that should be advocating a progressive vision for it, won't produce cars that appeal to our population with better gas mileage and emissions, then the North American car industry will continue to wither. Their complete lack of business sense, and social obligations to the rest of us, is astounding. Then again the dinosaurs weren't very adaptive either.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 03 October 2006 06:19 PM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
It is possible she will, but you can be rest assured they will be weak and meaningless. All the Harpercrites are concerned about is a little green washing to polish their well earned anti-environment image before they force an election and stupid Buzz and Dalton are hell bent on helping them. Stupider people there seldom are.

The Cons have positioned themselves well after the Liberals did nothong of substance for the last decade. The Cons are going to have a part 2 to all this and that is making a lot of noise about not sending money outside of the country to China, Russia, etc. to buy carbon credits (what a joke) as mandated by Kyoto but spend those same dollars here in Canada. Guess where? In part in helping Ontario auto manufacturers and energy producers meet new standards. It's going to be hard for the Libs to jump up and down in support of money going out of the country as opposed to federal funds being spent in Canada.

The Cons aren't stupid. They want this to get LOTS of flack and then they will bring out the cheque book. It will be framed in a concrete made in Canada policy that has substance and obtainable goals. The Cons are going to do what they say: reduction in GST...pre school child cheques and so on. Add to that an obtainable reduction in auto emissions. then they will point to their implementation of promises and policies.

One can like or not like Con policies. They are gambling that enough Canadians are more concerned that a government does what it says it is going to do rather than looking at the actual policies themselves.

10 to 1 the auto emission goals will be obtainable (unlike Kyoto) and 10 to 1 they will provide funding for those goals. In upcoming elections theywill compare this to the Libs on Kyoto. Love them or hate them the Cons are going to shape their environmental image in comparison to the Liberals and the Liberals are caught naked having done nothing of importance when they had a decade of opportunity.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Gollygee ]


From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 03 October 2006 06:24 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course they will be obtainable because they will be meaningless or based on meeting California standards well after the fact. No, the cons aren't stupid. Their supporters are. That is what they count on. Stupidity and misplaced self-interest.

The cons hate the earth and are liars as are all neo-cons.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 October 2006 06:35 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And let's not forget Buzz was in Windsor not long ago crowing about the new retro 400 hp Camaro. That's hardly a green vehicle.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 03 October 2006 06:46 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Mr. Hargrove is really looking forward to owning that Camero. He brought it up on the Mike Duffy show, something about making a street muscle 400 hp car that would be built in Canada but, if new regulations were applied, unable to be purchased in Canada.

Is it possible that Mr. Hargrove simply doesn't understand environmental issues. He is really not required to as an auto worker union leader.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 October 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any regulation that ban the proposed 400 hp Camaro, and stops the high performance Mustangs from being sold here, has my support. The CAW should lobby the industry to build greener cars, not these retro monsters.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 October 2006 07:09 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Any regulation that ban the proposed 400 hp Camaro, and stops the high performance Mustangs from being sold here, has my support. The CAW should lobby the industry to build greener cars, not these retro monsters.

This is from the CAW website:

quote:
Corporate priorities are responsible for the degradation of our environment. The CAW, as a major industrial and transportation union, needs to be heard on the environment. As a social union, we are committed to finding just solutions. Emissions of noxious pollutants from cars and trucks - hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide - have helped to create unhealthy cities, acid rain, the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer. The CAW is committed to helping develop transportation policies that are environmentally sound, yet will not lead to the destruction of the transportation industry. We support high emission control standards to limit pollutants emitted by automobiles. By taking a stand for a cleaner environment through tougher controls on our employers, we reject the blackmail of choosing job security over the environment.

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 October 2006 07:17 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
Is it possible that Mr. Hargrove simply doesn't understand environmental issues. He is really not required to as an auto worker union leader.

Well, actually, trade unionists are required to understand every progressive issue in the world, and to espouse them. I'm surprised at your comment. And union leaders, like leaders of other organizations, don't generally have the luxury of only talking about their own fields of individual expertise - Hargrove represents a union with 265,000 members, and I assume he has a staff to help him with the tough issues.

Anyway, he did in 2003:

CAW, Greenpeace join Layton in calling for green car industrial strategy

quote:
NDP Leader Jack Layton was today joined by Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargrove and Peter Tabuns, executive director of Greenpeace, to demand the Liberals get serious about protecting Canada's air quality and auto jobs. [...]

"People are worried about smog and jobs and it's time we thought ahead," said Layton. "There is a role for the public sector in requiring cleaner cars and helping create markets for them, and it's a golden opportunity for Canada to meet environmental goals while being proactive about the problems battering Canada's important auto sector."

"Canada desperately needs a modern industrial strategy for our auto industry," said Hargrove. "We're fed up watching jobs leave and no new plants arrive and I'm convinced that if we think ahead, Canada can be well-placed to make the cleaner cars that that the automakers are going to need soon."

The NDP is proposing that Canada enact mandatory fuel efficiency improvements of 25 per cent to all new cars by 2010, mirroring steps in place in both Europe and Japan, and helping Canada meet its Kyoto Protocol targets. Layton is also calling for Canada to cooperate with US states such as California and New York in helping create large markets for cleaner cars.


If Hargrove has changed his mind about mandatory emissions controls since then, I have yet to hear that clearly stated. If it is, he should be condemned for his opportunism. But I'd rather see the full story first, no matter how satisfying it is for some people to get extremely excited and jump up and down.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 October 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the CAW indeed has that environmental statement on their website, I'd be interested to hear from the CAW their opinons (not Hargrove's) on the high performance Mustang and the proposed 400 hp Camaro.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 03 October 2006 07:38 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK unionist. I would ask you why the dissonance between what Hargrove has said in the past, the statement on the CAW website and what Hargrove is saying now.

But I guess you are waiting for a more complete story to unfold. Which is understandable.

Nevertheless, a handful of us saw him interviewed on the Duffy show (who is that nasty reporter sitting in for Duffy?) and he was entirely negative toward this supposed legislation that Ambrose is supposedly bringing in.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 October 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
Nevertheless, a handful of us saw him interviewed on the Duffy show (who is that nasty reporter sitting in for Duffy?) and he was entirely negative toward this supposed legislation that Ambrose is supposedly bringing in.

I will condemn Hargrove if he departs from the CAW policy which I quoted above.

On the other hand, I will right now - this instant - condemn, sight unseen, any legislation that Ambrose brings in.

How can I do that? Because I don't believe vampires turn into blood donors overnight. These scum have rejected Kyoto and withdrawn much-needed funding from environmental programs. It is impossible for them to do anything positive on the environment, just as it has been impossible for them to do anything positive on U.S. relations, defence of Canadian trade, child care, openness of government, or any other issue.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 03 October 2006 07:54 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
....................
How can I do that? Because I don't believe vampires turn into blood donors overnight.

Ha. That's a bumper sticker slogan of note!

Here's the link (to a link) of Hargrove being interviewed on this issue.

Mike Duffy. 4:19 in length. (You don't have to sit through the Wilkins interview.)

sgm is on the money; Hargrove talks of replacing some 18 million gas guzzlers on Canadian roads by providing incentives for us to buy more economical cars. But he speaks against other aspects of environmental concerns like those addressed by California's air laws.

And he seems honestly worried about the future of Canadian automotive production.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 03 October 2006 09:27 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:
Actually, I believe Minister Ambrose is going to bring in mandatory GHG regulations for both the auto and oil and gas sectors...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes you think that?


Ambrose has given several recent interviews confirming her intentions to regulate the oil and gas and auto sectors and rejection of the Liberal voluntary approach - see here and here and here and here for just a few examples of the coverage. There are many more if you want to dig for them- the links above are from a 5-minute google search.

As I said earlier, I fear the Ambrose GHG regs will be both delayed in application and not stringent enough, but there is no question that we are heading for regulation of GHG emissions in those sectors. The voluntary approach of the Liberals was a complete disaster as GHG emissions are now 30% or more above our Kyoto targets.


quote:
I will condemn Hargrove if he departs from the CAW policy which I quoted above.

I just saw Buzz on CPAC again saying the California model of mandatory GHG reductions would be a disaster for Canada, and that the voluntary approach was the best way to go, which directly contradicts the progressive CAW/NDP Green Car policy (thanks for posting that reference, Unionist). So, I think the "Unionist Buzz Hargrove condemnation trigger" has been reached


quote:
On the other hand, I will right now - this instant - condemn, sight unseen, any legislation that Ambrose brings in.

How can I do that? Because I don't believe vampires turn into blood donors overnight. These scum have rejected Kyoto and withdrawn much-needed funding from environmental programs. It is impossible for them to do anything positive on the environment, just as it has been impossible for them to do anything positive on U.S. relations, defence of Canadian trade, child care, openness of government, or any other issue.


I'm sure it felt really good to write out that rant, unionist, but I'd argue it's neither rational nor accurate. The Tories have already formally apologized for the Chinese head tax and are working on compensation, called a public inquiry into the Air India bombing, and introduced legislation to ban all union and corporate political donations, reduce individual contributions to $1,000, set fixed election dates, etc. All good initiatives, most of which have been advocated by the NDP for years, and thus they should be supported. Just saying "everything Harper does is evil no matter what it is" is not a solid argument, IMHO. Harper is an extreme right-wing ideolgue but in a minority context, he will have to come up with some progressive policies to both survive as a gov't and hope to win a majority next time.

Let's remember that enviro groups recently named Brian Mulroney the "greenest Prime Minister in Canadian history." In the US, the Clean Air Act was passed by the Nixon administration. Of all people, Arnie "The Terminator" Schwartzenegger (I have no clue how to spell that name!) has turned out to be the most environmentally progressive politician in US history! Here in BC, it is the Gordo Campbell government that is finally forcing the city of Victoria to treat its raw sewage.

So, stranger things have happened in the past, and I do think Harper will have a better record on GHG emissions than the Liberals, which of course is not saying very much at all. As Mulroney said during his award ceremony, "the jury found I was the best of a bad bunch"


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 October 2006 09:45 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WCL, I'll confess I find your views on the Harper government disturbing - including your account of the "positive" things it has done. I guess that's all I'll say for now, other than please be vigilant. These wreckers of our society are far from finished.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 03 October 2006 10:06 PM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Because I don't believe vampires turn into blood donors overnight. These scum have rejected Kyoto and withdrawn much-needed funding from environmental programs. It is impossible for them to do anything positive on the environment, just as it has been impossible for them to do anything positive on U.S. relations, defence of Canadian trade, child care, openness of government, or any other issue.


Your hysteria is amusing. A black and white world of fantasy in which humans are divided into good and evil. The right has no monopoly on simplistic thinking.


From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 October 2006 10:37 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gollygee:
Your hysteria is amusing. A black and white world of fantasy in which humans are divided into good and evil. The right has no monopoly on simplistic thinking.

Oh, I beg your pardon. I shouldn't condemn Stephen Harper and Rona Ambrose out of hand. Let me try again and be more nuanced and subtle:

quote:
The Cons have positioned themselves well...

The Cons are going to have a part 2 to all this... helping Ontario auto manufacturers and energy producers meet new standards.

The Cons aren't stupid.

... a concrete made in Canada policy that has substance and obtainable goals.

The Cons are going to do what they say.

One can like or not like Con policies.

a government does what it says it is going to do

10 to 1 the auto emission goals will be obtainable (unlike Kyoto) and 10 to 1 they will provide funding for those goals.

Love them or hate them the Cons are going to shape their environmental image...


Oh me oh my, some people are so nuanced, subtle, moderate, all-sided, cautious, non-extreme, that it's virtually impossible to figure out where they stand!

Please, please, please let me in on your secret:

What do you think of the Conservatives?

I'm just groping in the dark here...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 03 October 2006 11:02 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Politics101:
Isn't Buzz suppose to represent the auto workers whose jobs could be at stake and not the enviromental movement - in my union days I always thought that the union leaders were suppose to stand up for their members well being and not necessarily good public policy.

That would be the polite way of saying it.

Anyone who cares about the environment in the slightest would never let the auto manufacturing industry get off scot free while attacking oil companies. The only people who would do that are opportunists who want to garner support from auto industry workers and have a visceral hatred for any industries or regions that can prosper without their "help" and in fact may harbour a lot of opposition to their authoritah. In this regard, the CAW and the Liberal Party of Canada are quite similar.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 04 October 2006 12:53 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I just saw Buzz on CPAC again saying the California model of mandatory GHG reductions would be a disaster for Canada, and that the voluntary approach was the best way to go, which directly contradicts the progressive CAW/NDP Green Car policy (thanks for posting that reference, Unionist). So, I think the "Unionist Buzz Hargrove condemnation trigger" has been reached

I haven't had a chance to look into this. But if this is what Hargrove is saying, then he can just go F*)&(80 himself in the ()&*8.

His union's position is quite clear on this, as the West Coast Lefty points out, is for binding regulations on this, not voluntary compliance.

I agree the voluntary compliance measures the Liberals put in were, in keeping with their tradition, totally the opposite of what they promised when they signed us on to Kyoto.

Perhaps Hargrove, hoping maybe for another Liberal minority government in the next federal election, which, he may be hoping, will honour the job and pension protection commitments made by the former Martin regime, is trying to curry favour with whoever the next Liberal leader will be, since, as far as I know, none of them are promising mandatory GHG regulations.

In either case, Hargrove has pretzeled himself again--first by contradicting his union's positions, and possibly second, trusting the Liberals on anything.

This is truly sad.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 October 2006 02:51 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did anyone in the Hargrove interview make reference to Alberta's oil and gas industry being the No.1 polluter in Canada? I saw that statistic recently in a show on global warming.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 04 October 2006 08:02 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
WCL, I'll confess I find your views on the Harper government disturbing - including your account of the "positive" things it has done. I guess that's all I'll say for now, other than please be vigilant. These wreckers of our society are far from finished.

Sorry to have disturbed you - for the record, my view is that Harper is an extreme right-wing social conservative who would slavishly follow the corporate agenda if he had a majority...just like the Liberals did from 1993 to 2004. In 2004-2005, we had a Liberal minority that brought in a very right-wing budget which Jack was able to reverse and gain some major wins for the environment, foreign aid, affordable housing, etc.

Despite that dismal record, the Liberals did a few good things (ratifying Kyoto, legalizing SSM, etc) often for opportunistic reasons, but I praised those moves then and if Harper does some good stuff for whatever reason, I'll give him credit for it.

If that disturbs you, so be it - what disturbs me is the mantra of "we must remove Harper at any costs no matter what the alternative is", which leads to a repeat of 1993 when we booted out the right-wing Tories and got the extreme right Chretien-Martin era, who cut social programs even more than Mulroney did, embraced the FTA and NAFTA, let GHG emissions go up by 30%, saw record levels of homelesseness and child poverty, passed a "Defence of Marriage" act which explicitly banned gay marriage, etc, etc. The black cats are very black these days but the white cats are just as vicious to mice, to quote Tommy Douglas.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 04 October 2006 08:42 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From a strategic politics point of view, the Conservatives have a alot to gain by doing a bit of a reverse step on some environmental policy. Now that Hargrove has gone Liberal, the Conservatives going after Hargrove/auto industry and the oil patch may just be a potential majority winner. How could a voter putting high priority on environemental issues vote Liberal when suddenly it's the Conservatives battling the pro-environemnt stance vs a pro-industry liberal?

I also think some Conservatives realize that the biggest threat to their power base within ridings that they consider 'assured seats' is environmental concerns... And the largest potential rift in the party may quite likely be such.

This could be an interesting devlopement... But if anything it's serving to prove that within Canada Liberal = Conservative anyway.

That aside, I doubt Ambrose... er... sorry. Kristie... pays the environmental concerns little more than a bit of lip service.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


quote:
Did anyone in the Hargrove interview make reference to Alberta's oil and gas industry being the No.1 polluter in Canada?

Kinda a useless statement all told... Blaming how we get the gasoline and not our mass consumption of gasoline doesn't make much sense. Limit production here, give more reason and need to invade iraq/iran to get it there.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 04 October 2006 10:53 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
what disturbs me is the mantra of "we must remove Harper at any costs no matter what the alternative is", which leads to a repeat of 1993 when we booted out the right-wing Tories and got the extreme right Chretien-Martin era, who cut social programs even more than Mulroney did, embraced the FTA and NAFTA, let GHG emissions go up by 30%, saw record levels of homelesseness and child poverty, passed a "Defence of Marriage" act which explicitly banned gay marriage, etc, etc. The black cats are very black these days but the white cats are just as vicious to mice, to quote Tommy Douglas.

Skookum rockin chiller! Glass of house red for the West Coast Lefty! Simply cynically buying the line that support for the Liberals is necessary to get rid of the Conservatives is just political prostitution with no values or integrity.

In practice, other than maybe the whole SSM issue and a whole bunch of hot air rhetoric, the Conservatives and Liberals have been almost indistinguishable in government.

quote:
Isn't Buzz suppose to represent the auto workers whose jobs could be at stake and not the enviromental movement - in my union days I always thought that the union leaders were suppose to stand up for their members well being and not necessarily good public policy.

This is a good question and worthy of further discussion. Of course, as a democratically elected union rep, Hargrove’s first responsibility is to his members. That’s true for any union leader. What’s the point of even running for such a position if that’s not a given.

However, in terms of long-term strategy, what are the best ways to ensure the well-being of union members, first off, and working people and their communities in general in the bigger picture (which is a fundamental commitment in the CAW constitution)?

For example, how will increased GHG emissions and related pollution affect the health of CAW members and their families, especially as they get older? Quite often, the people who suffer the most from industrial pollution and toxics are the people who work in them—since they are always at the center point of exposure.

It’s no secret that numerous chronic and even terminal illnesses are either caused in part, or exacerbated, by intense long-term exposure to CO and other GHG pollutants.

Even using narrow capitalistic measures, it’s easy to see what a huge cost that is on our economy—not only in lower productivity due to ill health, but huge increases in health expenditures to treat such illnesses.

I have read that in the US the biggest cause of small business and personal bankruptcy is unaffordable health care bills. While in Canada, we are fortunate that we have at least a half-assed universal public health care system that can greater absorb those costs. But even it has its limits. How much pressure are we going to put on our health care plans to treat people’s illnesses when we could be adopting measures that reduce the chances of them getting so sick in the first place? That’s a union issue for sure, and many labour groups have been addressing this. Why doesn’t Hargrove show some of his infamous leadership and innovative skills and take this on?

Then of course there are the huge potential economic benefits of developing and mass producing non-polluting non-fossil and self-renewing fuels (like hydrogen electrolysis) and motor technology. Don’t tell me there aren’t any employment opportunities in producing and selling gas-free non-polluting cars! Can anyone say Europe?

The CAW already has adopted policy calling for the implementation of these new ecologically sound technologies. In BC, the Working Opportunity Fund, the cooperative labour-sponsored venture capital fund, has even put money into these projects, as did the former NDP government here. So why is this simple concept so hard for Hargrove to grasp?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Hargrove shouldn’t try to protect and even push for more jobs as things are now. I even gave credit where it’s due and congratulated him on getting the Martin regime to commit to some degree of job and pension protection for workers in that industry, and even for pestering GM bosses until they agree to open a new assembly plant.

But for Christ’s sake, I insisted when I interviewed him at the CAW convention that moving to a more sustainable and democratic economy is not only an historic core socialist value (which he claims to have), but the sheer number of success stories, especially at the regional level, in places around the globe prove it just makes sense.

This pisses me off. I think he’s just trying to curry favour with the Liberal leadership candidates, hoping that if they can win a minority government again in the next federal election, he can hold them to the commitments Martin made. And that’s just a plain stupid gamble.

Shit!


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 04 October 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if this is one of those 'only Nixon could go to China' things. A Liberal or NDP government bringing in non-voluntary emissions controls would incite howls of rage and horror from all sectors, including the CAW. But nobody can accuse the Conservatives of being a bunch of fuzzy-minded hippies, so they might just be able to get away with bringing in environmental regulations.

If they do it, then they should be congratulated for doing so, though it may well choke me to say it. However, I intend to read the fine print first.

And there sure as hell better be some significant restrictions placed on the emissions of those goddamn oil sands.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 04 October 2006 01:26 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Skookum rockin chiller! Glass of house red for the West Coast Lefty!

Thanks SA. I prefer Australian Chiraz or a good Cabernet Merlot from the Okanagan Valley...

quote:
If they do it, then they should be congratulated for doing so, though it may well choke me to say it. However, I intend to read the fine print first.

And there sure as hell better be some significant restrictions placed on the emissions of those goddamn oil sands.


I totally agree on both points. From the news today, it looks like no regs will kick in until 2010 anyway. I'm assuming Buzz and his fossil-fuel dinosaur allies will play nice from now on, while assuming that whichever colour mice are in power in 2010, they will cave in to the special interests and not implement the mandatory GHG restrictions. If history is any guide, Buzz will win that bet, unfortunately.

[ 05 October 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 04 October 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, time is on our side. Climate change isn't going away - it's going to get worse and worse. Those parties and groups who opposed doing anything about it will rightly end up on the scrap heap.

I just hope it happens soon enough.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 04 October 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
Well, time is on our side. Climate change isn't going away - it's going to get worse and worse. Those parties and groups who opposed doing anything about it will rightly end up on the scrap heap.

Well not exactly worse. It may actually improve the weather in Canada quite a bit!


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 October 2006 03:16 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ghlobe:
Well not exactly worse. It may actually improve the weather in Canada quite a bit!

Global warming due to GHG and other causes doesn't necessarily mean winter will be warmer. Different regions will be warmer or colder. If you can, you may wish to examine climate models for your area. Where I live, on Quebec's Lower North Shore (below Labrador) our winters are about as cold as they've been in the past hundred years according to folks who live here, and we're now getting record snowfalls. I have photo proof of snowfalls for the past few years, by the way - houses almost buried in snow.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 04 October 2006 03:52 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ghlobe:

Well not exactly worse. It may actually improve the weather in Canada quite a bit!


So we'll be a bit warmer while our food supply collapses.

'Improved' weather has gone a long way to devastating most of the forests here in BC, and the logging industry is going off a cliff in about 7 years when they run out of wood. That's a direct result of warmer winters (and poor forest management).

Warmer winters also means the glaciers don't replenish. No glaciers means no water for most of the prairies. Warm places with no water = deserts.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 October 2006 04:02 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
Warm places with no water = deserts.

Or the 'dust bowl' that Woodie Guthrie (and others) sang about.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 04 October 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wel, well, well. What'd I tell ya?

quote:
After months of promising a comprehensive “Made-in-Canada” environment plan, word from the federal Conservative government is there won’t be a formal plan after all.

A senior official in the office of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said the word “plan” is no longer being used. It’s now an “approach.”


Buzz and Dalton are like political neophytes


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 04 October 2006 10:33 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It may actually improve the weather in Canada quite a bit!

Maybe if you like plus 40. I prefer minus 40... you can dress for it. Oh and maybe you'd like a lot more hurricanes and tornados.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 04 October 2006 10:36 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, time is on our side. Climate change isn't going away - it's going to get worse and worse. Those parties and groups who opposed doing anything about it will rightly end up on the scrap heap.

Time is not on our side. If action isn't taken soon those who oppose action will end up on the scrap heap of dead civilizations, if not the scrap heap of evolution, along with the rest of us.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 October 2006 11:33 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

Ambrose has given several recent interviews confirming her intentions to regulate the oil and gas and auto sectors ...

Harper is an extreme right-wing ideolgue but in a minority context, he will have to come up with some progressive policies to both survive as a gov't and hope to win a majority next time.

[...]
So, stranger things have happened in the past, and I do think Harper will have a better record on GHG emissions than the Liberals, which of course is not saying very much at all.


Yours may be the shortest-lived optimistic prediction on record:

Climate change is not top issue: Rona Ambrose

quote:
Canadians' No. 1 priority is air quality, meaning the purity of the air they breathe, while climate change is "another issue that they're very concerned with," she said.

Translation: go after the auto industry, and leave oil and gas alone.

As I said near the top of this thread, there's a lot more to this than meets the eye.


[quote]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 05 October 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Translation: go after the auto industry, and leave oil and gas alone.

Ignoring the air quality issues associated with the oil and gas industry. If you read the rest of the article, you might agree that Hargrove might have a point, that mandatory standards should be accompanied by other measures, and that such regulations are more acceptable if imposed on all industries and regions equitably.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 06 October 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yours may be the shortest-lived optimistic prediction on record:

Climate change is not top issue: Rona Ambrose


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadians' No. 1 priority is air quality, meaning the purity of the air they breathe, while climate change is "another issue that they're very concerned with," she said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation: go after the auto industry, and leave oil and gas alone.

As I said near the top of this thread, there's a lot more to this than meets the eye.


I wasn't being "optimistic" as I predicted the regs would be too weak and take many years to come into effect, consultations will drag on and on, etc, but that there would be mandatory GHG emissions regs at the end of the day.

I watched Ambrose's entire testimony on CPAC and she repeated several times that the voluntary approach is not working and that both oil and gas and the auto sectors will be suject to those mandatory targets, as weak and as delayed as they will no doubt be.

Bottom line: the Liberals had an abysmal record on climate change and the Tories will likely have only a very slightly less abysmal record. It's still good that they are moving to mandatory regs for GHG reductions and scrapping the voluntary approach, this will set a useful precedent for future governments to go much further, as California is doing for example.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 06 October 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The insidious part of this is the neo-cons are talking about passing regulations. If they are regulations to an existing Act of parliament then they can be passed by Order in Council with no requirement for debate in the House. Even if they pass a new statute any regulations can be passed later without the House getting to debate them.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 06 October 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With tongue firmly in check.

I think that the only good thing will be all the rich corporate assholes that have been buying up our waterfront and making it unaffordable for regular folks are going to be underwater. Poetic justice I guess for all the Calgary oil execs currently buying up property all over the west coast.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 October 2006 02:53 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ambrose criticizes Hargrove, McGuinty for pollution stance

quote:
Ambrose said the CEOs "understand why clean air matters to them."

But "my concern is with Buzz Hargrove and the Liberal premier of Ontario. If the Liberals do not want" clean air, the Conservatives "will deliver it," she added.


The Conservatives and the auto company CEOs want mandatory emission controls because they care about clean air, but the CAW and the Liberals don't care.

If you believe even .01% of this crap, welcome to a shining new era of Conservative majority rule, with clean air to breathe, clean shows on TV for our kids, a clean world without terrorists, and clean neighbourhoods for the wealthy.

[ 06 October 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ravenj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5357

posted 08 October 2006 06:24 AM      Profile for ravenj     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regardless of Hargrove's stance, his hugs and kisses with the Ontario Liberals had certainly paid off. After the double barrel Buzz/Dalton shot, Flaherty met with auto industry/CAW to supposedly assure the industry that they won't be impacted. Adding this to Kristie's earlier backroom promises to the hydrocarbon industry, it's business as usual.

Personal feeling about Hargrove aside, I must admit his realpolitik is working out very well.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 October 2006 07:40 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But "my concern is with Buzz Hargrove and the Liberal premier of Ontario. If the Liberals do not want" clean air, the Conservatives "will deliver it," she added.

Didn't I say way at the very top of this thread that is waht they would do? Now they can blame Bzz and Dalt for sitting on their hands. The Conservatives achiles heel has just been reinforced with Liberal grade concrete by Dumb and Dumber in Ontario. Way to go, assholes.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 08 October 2006 08:04 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Didn't I say way at the very top of this thread that is waht they would do? Now they can blame Bzz and Dalt for sitting on their hands. The Conservatives achiles heel has just been reinforced with Liberal grade concrete by Dumb and Dumber in Ontario. Way to go, assholes.


So in your analysis, significant numbers of voters will now be convinced that the Conservatives wanted to deliver clean air but were stopped from doing so by their political foes (Hargrove and McGuinty)?

You really have a low opinion of people's brains.

My greater fear is progressives who hate Hargrove more than they hate Harper.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 October 2006 09:26 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So in your analysis, significant numbers of voters will now be convinced that the Conservatives wanted to deliver clean air but were stopped from doing so by their political foes (Hargrove and McGuinty)?

Well, yes, I do. How many Americans still believe they found WMD in Iraq? Or that Saddam and Al Qaeda were tight? Remember the big lie? Say. Repeat. Repeat ad nauseum.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 08 October 2006 09:47 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Well, yes, I do. How many Americans still believe they found WMD in Iraq? Or that Saddam and Al Qaeda were tight? Remember the big lie? Say. Repeat. Repeat ad nauseum.


Ok, good. So Buzz Hargrove has helped the Conservatives to their majority by allowing them to appear Green. Check back in a week or two and see if this view still holds water. It's "analysis" like this that helped Harper get his minority.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 October 2006 09:54 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The analysis is correct as the media report above attests. It is a failure to recognize the way political messages can quickly resonate, abetted by a compliant media, that helped Harper get his minority and will help him get his majority.

When a government like Harper's has an achilles heel like the environment, you exploit it. You don't allow them to turn the message back on you. That is what Bzz and Dalt have done.

Now for those of us who do care about green policies, everytime we say "Harper doesn't care about global warming or air quality," some con flack is going to say, "but it was the unions and Ontario Liberals who stopped Kristie from introducing tight emission controls."

Now greens have a two front battle. The truth and the perception. You really should understand that.

[ 08 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 08 October 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Now for those of us who do care about green policies, everytime we say "Harper doesn't care about global warming or air quality," some con flack is going to say, "but it was the unions and Ontario Liberals who stopped Kristie from introducing tight emission controls."

I understand your point, but it's wrong. When Harper introduced his $1200 pseudo-childcare joke, some feared to condemn it on the grounds that Harper would say, "the NDP took away your $1200". Even to this day, the NDP is afraid to say, "cancel the $1200 and put that money, and much more, into building a public child care system".

I don't particularly buy that kind of political cowardice. I still have no clue, after reading the press reports, what the Cons discussed with Hargrove and McGuinty, and what they rejected - other than the clear message that the Cons told them there would be no meaningful mandatory regs for the oil and gas industry. I got that loud and clear. So if the "greens" want a talking point, here it is:

"The Harper Conservatives have renounced Kyoto; withdrawn funding from environmental organizations; and will provide absolutely nothing meaningful to address climate change or ambient pollution."

You're afraid the Cons will say, "Aw, we wanted to do something about auto emissions - the auto companies were on-board - but the all-powerful Buzz Hargrove - to whom we owe nothing because he supported Paul Martin - stopped us dead in our tracks?" That will really sound credible, won't it?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 08 October 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
everytime we say "Harper doesn't care about global warming or air quality," some con flack is going to say, "but it was the unions and Ontario Liberals who stopped Kristie from introducing tight emission controls."

Frustrated Mess

quote:
When Harper introduced his $1200 pseudo-childcare joke, some feared to condemn it on the grounds that Harper would say, "the NDP took away your $1200". Even to this day, the NDP is afraid to say, "cancel the $1200 and put that money, and much more, into building a public child care system".

quote:
You're afraid the Cons will say, "Aw, we wanted to do something about auto emissions - the auto companies were on-board - but the all-powerful Buzz Hargrove - to whom we owe nothing because he supported Paul Martin - stopped us dead in our tracks?" That will really sound credible, won't it?

Unionist

This type of timidity that the unionist points out are mainly the result of the fear and intimidation many progressives, including many NDP elected reps, have of the hostile and less than honest major corporate media.

For example, it’s obvious from what child advocates and child support unions are reporting that the main problem is simply the lack of child care facilities and services. What’s the point of a federal tax benefit (which is itself taxable) for child care if there are not enough services to meet the demand? The problem is the corporate media, especially the Global CanWest Corporation, hates any form of social infrastructure investment. So it will bury this problem and simply format anyone’s criticism of the Conservatives’ tax benefit as being opposed to something that is better than nothing.

The same will likely be true if the Conservatives do actually implement some level of mandatory GHG emissions limits for the auto sector.

It won’t matter to the corporate media that the CAW has voted to endorse the Kyoto protocols and drafted an impressive comprehensive transition to sustainability strategy, along with investing resources into promoting these, meaning Hargrove’s comments last week on voluntary compliance don’t add up to much. Rather, it will be interpreted that anyone who criticizes the Conservatives for implementing mandatory emissions limits for auto plants, while doing nothing except giving more free public money to the tar sand projects, which have far worse emissions, is simply playing politics by opposing what is apparently a good ecological initiatives by the Conservatives.

Machiavelli, one of the founding fathers of macro-capitalist thinking and corporate governance call this “iversione de’l impressione;” or, “inversion of impressions:” make the positive ideas of your public interest critics look like blind negativism.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 08 October 2006 04:31 PM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:


Now for those of us who do care about green policies, everytime we say "Harper doesn't care about global warming or air quality," some con flack is going to say, "but it was the unions and Ontario Liberals who stopped Kristie from introducing tight emission controls."

Now greens have a two front battle. The truth and the perception. You really should understand that.

[ 08 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


Why won't it be the truth? Add to this the deafening silence of the NDP in not protesting a new muscle car production plant plant in Ontario. It's pushed me into the Green Party camp.


From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 08 October 2006 05:37 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why won't it be the truth? Add to this the deafening silence of the NDP in not protesting a new muscle car production plant plant in Ontario. It's pushed me into the Green Party camp.

First, thanks to the corporate media especially, there is often a big difference between truth and perception. That’s what the concerns here are about.

Second, why should the NDP or anyone else protest a new car production plant in Ontario? The NDP has pioneered sustainable economic development policies via opening up new energy sectors, tax shifting, adherence to the Kyoto protocols and development and implementation of non-fossil fuels and motor technology, as well as via community economic development, cooperatives and labour-sponsored enterprises—not to mention huge job creation via comprehensive recycling, re-use and ecological restoration programs.

This is a forward-thinking policy that quite rightly sees the move toward ecological sustainability as a huge economic opportunity, especially in the long term, not some sacrifice that has to be imposed on working people by shutting down industries, throwing people out of work and creating more and worsening poverty.

If anything, I think we should be calling on this new plant (if it ever does even get built. I’ll believe it when I see it) to start producing fossil-free or at least hybrid fuel engines (if it is going to build engines. I’m not sure that it is) and recycled materials for the auto-bodies, as well as operating within mandatory emissions limits, within a couple years of its operations. That would be a daring challenge.

This is a far more progressive solutions-based strategy than just the narrow backward-thinking and self-defeating tactic of naysaying.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 October 2006 06:20 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where's the Camaro muscle in fighting climate change?

excerpt:

At the very moment when governments and industry should be acting to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, along comes GM to launch a gas-guzzling, high-emitting vehicle. Similarly, with all signs pointing to a future with permanently higher gasoline prices in real terms -- that is, after inflation -- GM (with taxpayers' help) will be putting on the market in 2008 a vehicle quite wrong for the times.

The Camaro decision perfectly illustrates the two-facedness of the Ontario government. From one side of its mouth, the McGuinty government speaks of combatting climate change; from the other side, it funnels money into projects such as building the Camaro. Jobs, it would seem, will trump the environment. There is a way, of course, of not pitting jobs against the environment -- by imposing throughout North America vehicle emissions standards (VES) much tougher than those that now prevail across the continent.

excerpt:

North American automotive companies don't like the climate-change challenge. Such money as they have made in recent years has come from pushing out light trucks and SUVs, both environment destroyers.

Bringing back the Camaro reflects the kind of thinking that still prevails in Detroit. Yes, the Camaro is destined to be a niche car, with a production run much smaller than many other GM models.

That the Camaro is back at all reflects both the head-in-the-sand thinking about climate change, and a market response to similar models marketed by GM's competitors. That Ontario is helping to fund the Camaro's return speaks volumes about its mixed commitment to combatting greenhouse-gas emissions.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 08 October 2006 06:47 PM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post
This is in part why I really don't care about the specifics of a party's environmental policy. I'd rather know their their level of commitment to the environment being a priority. What is their position when the rubber meets the road?

Churchill had a great quote. "Nothing is more empty than an untried virtue". Anyone can advocate for the environment but then hide under the rocks like the NDP when the unions protest or bluster and waffle like the Cons and Libs when corporate or regional interests are louder than a hiccup.


From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 October 2006 07:14 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Give me a break. Is Steppenwolfe Allende and Unionist in the same political universe as the rest of us?

"When Harper introduced his $1200 pseudo-childcare joke, some feared to condemn it on the grounds that Harper would say, "the NDP took away your $1200". Even to this day, the NDP is afraid to say, "cancel the $1200 and put that money, and much more, into building a public child care system".

I don't particularly buy that kind of political cowardice. I still have no clue, after reading the press reports, what the Cons discussed with Hargrove and McGuinty, and what they rejected - other than the clear message that the Cons told them there would be no meaningful mandatory regs for the oil and gas industry. I got that loud and clear. So if the "greens" want a talking point, here it is:"

You don't fucking get it. You don't get it at all. Take of your partisan rose colored glasses and look at the facts. Here they are:

1) Cons have no environmental credibility.
2) Cons have abrogated responsibility on climate change and treaty obligations under Kyoto.
3) Environmental issues are creeping up as major concern of Canadians especially climate change.
4) Harper and neo-cons know they are vulnerable and decide to do some PR with a green platform in October.
5) Bzz and Dalt preempt the announcement by making a shrill and hysterical announcement that a policy that is yet to see the light of day will harm Ontario's economy.
6) Harper and Kirstie are left smiling being able to wiggle out of no actual committments and pointing to auto workers and Ontario as barriers to a green platform.

That is the truth. How do you want to spin it?

Then we have dittoism: "This type of timidity that the unionist points out are mainly the result of the fear and intimidation many progressives, including many NDP elected reps, have of the hostile and less than honest major corporate media" from someone who just doesn't get it all.

Duh, maybe if the press were nicer.

Here is the con spin right in this thread:

"Add to this the deafening silence of the NDP in not protesting a new muscle car production plant plant in Ontario. It's pushed me into the Green Party camp."

There you go, courtesy of Gollgee Whillickers.

In politics perception is truth and the perception that will be promoted is that when the neo-cons talked, only talked, about introducing emission controls, Bzz and Dalt had a public coniption forcing the poor neo-cons to back off.

And don't give me this sickening off the rails bullshit about intimidation and truth. It will be left to the activists to undo the damage done. Talking heads will continue to drone on defending their partisan interests while the real battles are being waged at the street level.

[ 08 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 08 October 2006 10:50 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Give me a break. Is Steppenwolfe Allende and Unionist in the same political universe as the rest of us?

Obviously not. I’m in the universe where people try to actually amply their principles as best they can and deal with the political and economic realities of doing so.

quote:
1) Cons have no environmental credibility.
2) Cons have abrogated responsibility on climate change and treaty obligations under Kyoto.
3) Environmental issues are creeping up as major concern of Canadians especially climate change.
4) Harper and neo-cons know they are vulnerable and decide to do some PR with a green platform in October.
5) Bzz and Dalt preempt the announcement by making a shrill and hysterical announcement that a policy that is yet to see the light of day will harm Ontario's economy.
6) Harper and Kirstie are left smiling being able to wiggle out of no actual committments and pointing to auto workers and Ontario as barriers to a green platform.

He says this as if the rest of us don’t know this. That fact this whole thread is about this very thing oesn’t seem to matter.

quote:
"This type of timidity that the unionist points out are mainly the result of the fear and intimidation many progressives, including many NDP elected reps, have of the hostile and less than honest major corporate media" from someone who just doesn't get it all.

Duh, maybe if the press were nicer.


I suppose it’s a waste of time to ask this guys why he thinks I supposedly “don’t get it.” Maybe he doesn’t realize the need for an actual free press in this country—one that invites open debate and discussion on these matters and reports on them fairly, instead of censoring them out and making anyone who opposes the corporate elite and its economic agenda as some kind of crazy-Joe.

quote:
Bzz and Dalt had a public coniption forcing the poor neo-cons to back off.

Right, now we really are in different universes. He actually thinks that what Hargrove says actually makes a difference in what Harper & co. actually do.

quote:
Anyone can advocate for the environment but then hide under the rocks like the NDP when the unions protest or bluster and waffle like the Cons and Libs when corporate or regional interests are louder than a hiccup.

Of course! Those evil rotten unions that in fact have done more to address climate change than most of the environmental groups in this country. Those dirty bastards who ruin everything by wanting to work for a living.

I suppose this guy actually thinks if auto plants shut down in Canada, that somehow will lead us to a sustainable economy because people will drive less or buy fewer cars. The fact is when auto plants close or down-size, car sales don’t drop and neither does gasoline consumption. People just buy more imports.

But it seems pretty pointless right now to bring up these observations here. The fact is I want to see real positive change in our economy that benefits people by moving toward sustainability and democracy--at least some of this before I leave this world. It seems these folks are just interested in hurting people.

The universes are different for sure. I’m going back to my practical one. Have fun in yours.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 08 October 2006 11:27 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a grand Idea to help against polution

And the styling is pretty shnazzy too!


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Infocus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12535

posted 08 October 2006 11:51 PM      Profile for Infocus        Edit/Delete Post
]
quote:
On the other hand, I will right now - this instant - condemn, sight unseen, any legislation that Ambrose brings in.

[QUOTE]Just saying "everything Harper does is evil no matter what it is" is not a solid argument, IMHO. Harper is an extreme right-wing ideolgue [/QUOTE}

I love this site! First, we get a 'progressive' who condemns stuff sight unseen. IOW, I have no idea what I'm talking about, because what I object to hasn't yet been revealed. But I hate it anyway.

Then we get a slightly more progressive 'progressive' who rightfully castigates the first 'progressive' for not making a "solid argument", followed by praise for a number of policies by what he/she then labels as an "extreme right wing ideologue."

Little wonder the left is considered loopy.


From: Nanaimo, B.C. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 09 October 2006 11:38 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Conservatives and the auto company CEOs want mandatory emission controls because they care about clean air, but the CAW and the Liberals don't care.

Leaving aside the CAW for the moment (I agree that their policy on climate change was progressive until Hargrove's shameful comments that are the subject of this thread), it is simply absurd to claim the Liberals "care" about climate change, Unionist. Saying the word Kyoto a lot while letting GHG emissions go up 30%, hosting an international conference with zero tangible commitments and making big splashy announcements doesn't mean you "care", it means you're trying to make voters believe you do. And in unionist's case at least, the Liberals seem to have succeeded.

For the record, McGuinty's disgraceful environmental record is outlined here, while federal environment commissioner Joanne Gelinas offers her indictment of the Chretien/Martin Liberal climate change policy here.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying the Conservatives are any better, except that they are actually saying we need mandatory GHG emission reductions, and that the voluntary approach the Liberals used is not working to meet our Kyoto targets. Does anybody seriously disagree with this? How does it help the environment when Dalton and Buzz slam the very concept of mandatory regs?

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 October 2006 11:49 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

Leaving aside the CAW for the moment (I agree that their policy on climate change was progressive until Hargrove's shameful comments that are the subject of this thread), it is simply absurd to claim the Liberals "care" about climate change, Unionist.


The Liberals, whether Ontario or federal, don't give a damn about the environment in any meaningful way. I'm referring to their actions in government, of course, not to the feelings of some individuals in that party, nor to their pretences while in opposition.

Your problem, WCL, is with reading. When did I say the Liberals care about anything? Read again, carefully.

Your other problem is that you created illusions about the Conservatives, having got sucked in by your obvious hate for Buzz Hargrove, and are having difficulty climbing down from that.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 09 October 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you created illusions about the Conservatives

I said over and over again that the GHG regs would be too weak and delayed for too long, which is exactly what appears to be the case. We won't know what is illusion and what is reality until the Green plan, or approach, or whatever they call it, is finally released.

quote:
Your problem, WCL, is with reading. When did I say the Liberals care about anything? Read again, carefully.

quote:
The Conservatives and the auto company CEOs want mandatory emission controls because they care about clean air, but the CAW and the Liberals don't care.

If you believe even .01% of this crap, welcome to a shining new era of Conservative majority rule,


You implied the Liberals cared about climate change by saying the first paragraph above, which said they didn't care, was totally unbelievable. My apologies if I misunderstood your point, but I don't see how your wording above could be interpreted any other way. It implies that the Liberals are better than the Conservatives on climate change, which I demonstrated with my references to be absolute nonsense.

Your problem seems to be hearing my argument that the Liberals are just as bad as the Conservatives, not that the Conservatives are any good on the environment.

If Ambrose backs down on her pledge to bring in mandatory GHG regs, I will be leading the calls to denounce her. It's interesting that the NDP had a motion in committee to call for Ambrose's resignation as Environment Minister and the "caring" Liberals were the ones that killed the resolution.

quote:
your obvious hate for Buzz Hargrove

I hated it when he endorsed Paul Martin, the most right-wing PM in Canadian history, and I hated it when he gave political cover for the big auto and oil and gas corporations to resist even minor curbs on GHG emissions. I can't imagine why any thinking progressive Canadian wouldn't despise those acts.

I'm still waiting for you to condemn Hargrove's statements on the mandatory GHG emission reductions, Unionist. Are you not able to climb down from your Buzz-love to disown his embrace of the worst polluters in Canada? Let's see if we can agree on this one point at least


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 09 October 2006 02:37 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Obviously not. I’m in the universe where people try to actually amply their principles as best they can and deal with the political and economic realities of doing so.



Yeah, right.


quote:

He says this as if the rest of us don’t know this. That fact this whole thread is about this very thing oesn’t seem to matter.


Not "the rest of us". You.

quote:

I suppose it’s a waste of time to ask this guys why he thinks I supposedly “don’t get it.” Maybe he doesn’t realize the need for an actual free press in this country—one that invites open debate and discussion on these matters and reports on them fairly, instead of censoring them out and making anyone who opposes the corporate elite and its economic agenda as some kind of crazy-Joe.

What was it you said about dealing with the "realities"? If you are really dealing with the realities, then deal with the reality that we exist under corporate owned and controlled media and quite wishing "if only ....".

quote:

Right, now we really are in different universes. He actually thinks that what Hargrove says actually makes a difference in what Harper & co. actually do.


See, here is the difference between yapping off at the mouth and actually paying attention and maybe learbing something.

I DID NOT say Harper actually lsitens to Hargrove (funny you don't defend McGuint for echoing Hargrove). Politics is all about communication and perception. Try to understand that first. Next understand that all Harper needs to do is say he intended to implement emission controls but the unions and Ontario went all apeshit.

So let's recap for to allow you time to catch up.

Politics is about a) communications and b) perception.
Hargrove and McGuinty went apeshit over "talk" of emission standards.
Harper will say he is not doing what he never really intended on doing because Hargrove and McGuint went apeshit.

Do you get it yet? It is finger pointing and blame which is a staple of the Canadian political diet of inaction. Dumb and Dumber gave Harper an out to do nothing which is exactly what he wanted to do, but now he can blame Dumb and Dumber. Okay, okay, too complicated.

1) Harper doesn't want to do 'A'.
2) Canadians want Harper to do 'A' and he is looking really bad for not ding 'A'.
3) Harper says, maybe I will talk about doing 'A'.
4) Dumb and Dumber scream, 'You do anything about 'A' and we will have shit in your cornflakes!!!"
5) Harper smiles and says, "Opps! Wanted to but can't sorry. Blame those guys."

Is it still too complicated?

quote:


Of course! Those evil rotten unions that in fact have done more to address climate change than most of the environmental groups in this country. Those dirty bastards who ruin everything by wanting to work for a living.


Get off your high chair. What precisely have they done? Give me the ten point plan?


quote:
suppose this guy actually thinks if auto plants shut down in Canada, that somehow will lead us to a sustainable economy because people will drive less or buy fewer cars. The fact is when auto plants close or down-size, car sales don’t drop and neither does gasoline consumption. People just buy more imports.


It is not a question of auto plants. Again, you think in a single dimension. It is a matter of what kind of vehicles are being produced. It is a question of what kind of market are they being sold in. For example, vehicle ownership might be the same in downtown Toronto as in Markham but in Markham their may be five vehicle trips per day per family compared to one in downtown Toronto.

The issue is complex and the goal is a reduction of green house gases and until you can get past your locked in partisanship and realize nature and climate don't give a shit if you pay union dues or not, you won;t see the big picture and you will forever be fighting the same boring battle. Meanwhile, your kids, if you have them, will be inheriting a dystopian world you've only read aboout in science fiction.

quote:

The fact is I want to see real positive change in our economy that benefits people by moving toward sustainability and democracy--at least some of this before I leave this world.


Then pay attention before its too late. Because if you want to see people get hurt, stay on a partisan trajectory of defending your union turf, rather than seeing the big picture.

Your universe isn't so much one of practicality as it is of denial. In that sense you have a great deal in common with the Harpercrats.

[ 09 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 October 2006 03:19 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

I'm still waiting for you to condemn Hargrove's statements on the mandatory GHG emission reductions, Unionist. Are you not able to climb down from your Buzz-love to disown his embrace of the worst polluters in Canada? Let's see if we can agree on this one point at least

I will NOT, absolutely NOT, condemn Hargrove's statements on Ambrose's non-existent plan based on half-assed quotes from the anti-people media. Never! I will wait to see exactly what Ambrose proposed in their private talks, and what Hargrove allegedly rejected.

I condemned Hargrove, and I continue to loudly do so, for his cowardly pro-Israel stand in May in his Toronto Star article - a position which stands in stark contrast with the CAW's position.

I differed with Hargrove and with the CAW as a whole in their "strategic voting" decision in the last election. I thought it was far too pro-Liberal AND pro-NDP. I also thought it was a shallow short-term ill-defined tactic which, even if it did have any sense to it, was virtually incapable of eliciting understanding from workers or inspiring them.

I also believe that on almost all issues of importance, until a couple of counter-examples in recent months, Hargrove and the CAW consistently took positions aimed at pushing the NDP to the left and averting the "third way" direction of the NDP leadership.

More recently, I have loudly and continuously praised Layton for his stand on Afghanistan, and will keep on doing so if he doesn't flinch. Hargrove, on the other hand, has been disturbingly silent or bizarre on that issue (such as, saying we should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and send them to Darfur instead!! whatever).

There - have I proven my independent credentials? I really don't care if I have or not. But understand clearly that I will judge Hargrove, Layton, Harper, McGuinty, and Kim Jong-Il and everyone else based on their actual stands and actual statements - not on some pathetic partisan peevishness. And when anyone knee-jerk attacks Hargrove (or anyone else), they can expect a rather large earful from me.

End of sidebar.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 09 October 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good post, Unionist - I agree with almost all of it, particularly these 2 paragraphs:

quote:
I differed with Hargrove and with the CAW as a whole in their "strategic voting" decision in the last election. I thought it was far too pro-Liberal AND pro-NDP. I also thought it was a shallow short-term ill-defined tactic which, even if it did have any sense to it, was virtually incapable of eliciting understanding from workers or inspiring them.

I also believe that on almost all issues of importance, until a couple of counter-examples in recent months, Hargrove and the CAW consistently took positions aimed at pushing the NDP to the left and averting the "third way" direction of the NDP leadership.


Just to clarify, I'm not a Hargrove-hater generally, but I do hate those recent actions which I referenced in my last point. I was especially disappointed as the CAW has been a major progressive force in fighting the third way approach as Unionist correctly states above. Of course, the biggest irony is that Buzz led the fight against the social contract during the Rae government (and I totally agreed with Buzz on that issue), but is now likely going to endorse him and campaign for him as Liberal leader!

End of sidebar - back to topic. We should get the first indication as to whether Harper and Ambrose are serious or not on Tuesday as the first stage of the Green Plan announcement happens in Vancouver. From the linked article, it appears they will be announcing increased support for public transit in Greater Vancouver, upgrading a UV air quality index, and retrofitting diesel school buses. All good stuff, but not a serious effort to address climate change by any means.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 09 October 2006 10:40 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
Basil the Insignificant splits the left vote,defects to the Liberals and now assists in the implimentation of the government's environment policy.

Perhaps he is disillusioned with the lackluster crew the Libranos are parading as potential leaders and has decided to pursue his senatorial ambitions with the CPC?

Does Basil presume that Canadians will choose to replace their 18 million "gas guzzlers" with new Canadian-built Camaros and eschew efficient Asian import autos or will the green sentiment force his new pals at CPC headquarters to offer incentives only on retro-tech crap from the "Big Three"?

Speaking of which,didn't the Big Three used to be Cord,Studebaker and Packard?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 October 2006 06:47 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

So, stranger things have happened in the past, and I do think Harper will have a better record on GHG emissions than the Liberals, which of course is not saying very much at all.

I've been anxiously awaiting your comments on Harper's plan to save the environment, WCL.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 14 October 2006 11:02 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was extremely distressed to hear Harper use the term "intensity-based targets" for the GHG emissions from the energy sector. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn was on a Victoria radio station this week and in response to my question, he confirmed the intensity-based approach. If they go for that Bush-inspired sham which allows overall emissions to continue to rise, we can kiss any serious attempt to reduce GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector goodbye.

I admit that I didn't expect the Tories climate change "plan" to be this pathetic, if for no other reason then they would be committing political suicide in Quebec, and likely handing gov't back to the Liberals within a few months. If the final plan is indeed as wafer-thin as it seemed from Harper's non-announcement this week, I will sadly eat my moderately optimistic words from past posts.

But let's get back to the actual subject of the thread, Unionist. There still is some faint hope of good news from the Ambrose plan in the auto sector - coming from none other than your buddy Buzz Hargrove. In Buzz's latest Iggy-like "clarification" of his disgraceful remarks opposing GHG regs for the auto sector, he confirms that:

quote:
Which brings us to last week's surprise meeting between several key federal Conservative ministers and automotive leaders, where the government dropped a bombshell. It plans to impose mandatory emissions standards on automobiles sold in Canada.

Rather than applauding and urging a strong implementation of this much needed and long-demanded policy, Buzz's first reaction is to ask:

quote:
What kind of mischief is the Harper government up to here, anyway?

And he goes on to say that, rather than pressuring Canadian auto factories to produce green cars, he wants to protect their current polluting ways against those evil foreign firms that actually make cleaner-running cars that consumers want to buy!


quote:
But the auto industry, and SUVs in particular, have become convenient scapegoats for a much broader problem.

The CAW fully supports the principle of regulated improvements in fuel efficiency for passenger vehicles, so long as they do not place Canadian auto production at a disadvantage to other jurisdictions.

U.S.-style "CAFE" rules, based on corporate-average efficiency targets, let Japanese and Korean producers entirely off the hook, simply because they produce, for reasons of history and geography, a smaller portfolio of vehicles.


Never mind that higher CAFE standards have been a crucial demand of US enviro groups for years, and would be an essential component of any serious Canadian plan to address climate change Buzz would far rather Japan-bash than seriously address the need for much higher fuel-efficiency standards in our vehicle fleet.

I'm still waiting for your condemnation of Buzz's position, Unionist. He has an obligation to look beyond his immediate self-interest and recognize that if his members' jobs depend on producing more deadly polluting SUVs, than the correct response is to demand that the employer move quickly to hybrids and other clean vehicles.

This would be much more constructive than seeking to punish other companies who are already serving that market, which is Buzz's "alternative" to the CAFE approach favoured by all credible environmental organizations.

The long-term interest of CAW members (and the planet) depends on making that shift, and Buzz should have pressured Harper to impose very tough enviro regs on the auto sector immediately, rather than slamming even the pathetic little PR package Ambrose is pushing as being too tough on Ford and GM

[ 14 October 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca