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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Why I'm pissed off at the NDP, Libs and Cons regarding climate change inaction.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why I'm pissed off at the NDP, Libs and Cons regarding climate change inaction.
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 01 November 2006 04:28 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1st thread: Is Jack Layton leaving Kyoto behind

I want to start a new thread, but I wanted the discussion to take a different turn. Up until this point we've (well, you've) been discussing whether Jack Layton has abandoned Kyoto or not with his bill designed to recieve Stephen Harper's support. There has also been some talk on whether we can still meet our 2010 Kyoto targets.

Let me start with the targets. Canada is supposed to cut GHG emmissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2010. Emmissions are currently 25% above 1990 levels. To meet our Kyoto agreements, Canada would need to reduce it's emmissions by 25% in under 4 years. Is that possible? I guess so. But you have to keep in mind no country has ever managed to cut emmissions anywhere near that much in such a short amount of time. It would be very, very hard. I would hardly blame anyone who would say it can't be done.

So you see, I'm not mad at Layton because his bill makes no mention of reducing CO2 emmissions 25% over 4 years.

Let me explain exactly why I'm POed at the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives at the moment.

For the last few years the Liberals have said that they are in favor of meeting our Kyoto targets. It was Cretien, I beleive, who ratified the treaty back in 2002. The problem is that, over the 11 years of majority government and 18 months of minority government the liberals were blessed with, they did next to nothing to actually try to cut CO2 emmissions. In fact, CO2 emissions rose ~20% since they took office and ~10% since they ratified Kyoto.

And now they are saying that the NDP abandoned Kyoto? Holy fucking hypocrisy batman. No. IT WAS THE LIBERALS who likely fucked up any shot we had at actually meeting these targets. That's why I'm pissed off at the Liberals.

The Conservatives and all thier prior incarnations have opposed any sort of plan that would cut CO2 emissions since the Kyoto accord was created. That is, they did until they got a minority government in a politcal environment where ~80% of Canada supported Kyoto. So now the conservatives are in favour of Kyoto! Even though they cut the few pathetic programs the liberals had in place and offered no replacement programs and policies of thier own. (Wait, they are subsidising bus passes) You see, they set thier own tough standards for the nation to meet in 19 years. And if we learned something from the liberals, its that you only need to say you support something to actually support something. Again, holy fucking hypocrisy batman. So that's why I'm pissed off at the conservatives.

But wait! Now Layton is coming along to save us from Harper thanks to some tough negotiation. You see, Layton is going to make these far off benchmarks much tougher. Instead of a 50% reduction in CO2 were going to have an 80% reduction in CO2 in 44 years! With 5 year checkpoints in between. Huzzah! Layton is really the saviour of climate change. He makes parliment work for Canadians(TM). Even though he has not told Harper to save the liberal programs he cut or institute any plan to reach these targets either. Although he is giving the minister of the environment the authority to regulate CO2 (guess no one told Layton the minister can already regulate CO2). Holy fucking sellout batman.

You see, the reason I'm angry at the NDP, the liberals, and the conservatives is that they now all claim to be taking climate change action, just because they say that they are going to reduce emmissions X% by year 20XX. You don't take action by talking about where you want to be, you take action by taking action!

You know why none of the parties are talking about HOW we reduce CO2 emmissions? It's easier.

Saying that you'll reduce emmissions is just so much sexier than actually saying your going to bring back some of those liberal programs, or saying you'll do something about the tarsands industry, or saying your going to implement carbon taxes, or investing in cleaner energy, or subsidising cleaner transportation.

I don't want to hear anything anymore about where were going to be in CO2 reductions by 2010, or 2025 or 20fucking50! I want to hear about what were going to do now, right the fuck now, to actually get there.

You all ask me what makes the Green Party so different from everyone else? It's this type of thing, right here. I would never, ever support a leader willing to sell out like this just to make his party look good enough to get seat #155, or seat #110, or seat #29.

There, I can sleep now.

[ 01 November 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 01 November 2006 04:46 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

There, I can sleep now.


When you wake up, take note that Kyoto calls for a 6% reduction by 2012, not 2010. Not that it matters, I guess. Rona Ambrose declared it impossible 5 months ago, to the howls of many.

Funny that since the day before yesterday, some seem to have come to the overnight conclusion that she was right.

I wonder what changed?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 01 November 2006 05:19 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Saying that you'll reduce emmissions is just so much sexier than actually saying your going to bring back some of those liberal programs, or saying you'll do something about the tarsands industry, or saying your going to implement carbon taxes, or investing in cleaner energy, or subsidising cleaner transportation.

I don't want to hear anything anymore about where were going to be in CO2 reductions by 2010, or 2025 or 20fucking50! I want to hear about what were going to do now, right the fuck now, to actually get there.


You are confusing the different aspects of the issue.

Thumbnail sketch of how government is supposed to work.

1. Legislation of goals/rules
2. Regulations created as a result of legislation
3. Plans created to meet requirements of legislation
4. Funding & decisions around meeting those goals

So you need the legislation to drive the regulations & other decisions. That's what the NDP is doing here - proposing the legislation, at that level. Proposing legislation does not cancel out making recommendations and demands at other levels - but legislation is required to authorize/force government to act at the other levels. That is a key part of the puzzle.

That doesn't mean they have not and are not advocating specific concrete steps right now. It's a bit disingenuous to get pissed off about the most recent activity of the NDP, and pretend it's the only thing they've ever said.

So, on the more concrete stuff - below the level of legislation - the NDP are advocating a lot of actions for 'right now'. A brief look at their website, or a cursory read of Layton's statements over the past year would have shown you that, if you wanted to see it.

So, on their website and in their policy pronouncements it's not hard to find their plans and recommendations.
1. Greener homes strategy

quote:
* Development of an advanced energy efficiency program to help make Canadian homes the most efficient in the world;
* Amendment of the National Building Code to legislate lower energy use in new homes;
* Making mandatory, in order to qualify for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Mortgage Insurance Program, proof of compliance with the new National Building Code's energy efficiency provisions for new homes AND Establishing or enhancing other programs to assist Canadians in retrofitting older homes so as to meet the new energy standards;
* Requiring that all appliances and lighting sold in Canada meet the Energy Star standards; and
* Re-instatement of the EnerGuide program abolished by the Conservatives.

2.
Greener communities strategy

quote:
- Retrofit community, commercial and institutional infrastructure through a loan and tax incentive program.
- Install 100,000 solar thermal building systems (rooftops or walls), as is done in Sweden, with a federal grant for 50 per cent of the material costs and loans for the remainder.
- Provide funding for community capacity building. Funding would be used to support the development of community groups and non-profit organizations to promote activities which promote greener use of energy and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
- Provide support for local co-operative and renewable power production using wind, biomass, and other renewable sources, and small scale cogeneration to reduce reliance upon centralized power plants.
- Enlarge the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Green Fund to drive further infrastructure investment by communities towards green house gas reductions.
- Provide incentives to communities to reduce emissions from land fills.

3. Transportation Strategy
quote:
- Invest in Canadian production of green cars to ensure our auto industry remains viable in a world craving more green cars.
- Create a vehicle purchasing consortium for governments at all levels in order to create a market for greener vehicle production resulting in lower costs to consumers who also want to purchase green vehicles.
- Offer a significant GST rebate on the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, with the rebate increasing with the vehicle's fuel efficiency.
- Provide incentives to businesses and corporations to green their transportation fleets
- Provide federal government support for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in communities as part of a commitment to sustainable transport.
- Bring in mandatory vehicle emission standards, for all vehicles sold in Canada.
- Increase support for rail transport as a more energy efficient means of moving freight and people.

4. Industry strategy
quote:
- Help large industrial companies make the transition to sustainability with energy audits paid for by the government, resulting in permanent reductions in energy bills; and assist these companies in making sustainable change by using funds collected through the auction of emission credits.
- Give fair notice to large emitters that, starting in 2008, permissible emissions will be capped and the cap will be annually reduced with an eventual goal of a 50 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030.
- Introduce a market-based auction for available emission credits in 2009, with credits divided among sectors. At the outset, the auction will cover less than 10 per cent of available credits, with a goal of all emission credits sold by auction by 2030. Proceeds from the sale of emission credits will go to sustainability projects.
- View the industrial sector as a source of energy, and invest in co-generation, with special emphasis on biomass, with a priority given to provinces without a surplus of hydro-electric power.
- Mandate the petroleum industry to meet World Fuel Charter standards and improve the cleanliness of petroleum and diesel; work with the auto and petroleum industry to ensure that access to alternative fuels expands with the availability of alternative fuel vehicles.
- Stop tilting the marketplace towards unsustainable energy and, over four years, stop government subsidies and tax breaks for unsustainable energy.
- Establish minimum standards for efficiency in the use of fossil fuels for electrical production, including co-generation in order to improve Canada’s generation efficiency from its current 30%.

5. Canada & world
quote:
- retrofit 75 per cent of federal government and Crown corporation facilities, to bring them to the highest standards currently available.
- move to a target of 100 per cent of government and Crown corporation power purchases coming from renewable sources, helping to create guaranteed markets for new, sustainable Canadian power generation.
- Require that all new government and Crown corporation buildings be constructed to meet the highest possible energy efficiency standard, and incorporate solar heating technology into all new government building designs.
- Expand current purchasing requirements for Energy Star goods and equipment to include all Crown corporations.
- Help coal-dependent provinces replace polluting power with cleaner alternatives through an east-west electricity grid that makes it easier for them to receive hydro power from Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.
- Negotiate with the provinces and territories to adopt fixed price strategies for renewable power, as is done in Europe, to make it a more financially attractive option for small scale producers.
- Extend existing moratoria on oil and gas drilling off British Columbia’s coast, in the Great Lakes, and on the George’s Bank off the coast of Nova Scotia.
- Set and meet a target of 10,000 megawatts of wind generation by 2010, by providing financial help to wind generation projects across Canada with a base support of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
- Place a priority on ensuring wind turbines and solar panels are made in Canada, providing large new markets for existing and emerging industries.
- Help other countries develop sustainability by providing Canadian green energy technology to developing countries, as part of Kyoto’s clean development mechanism.
- Live up to Canada’s international agreements by reversing the current government’s position and the past government’s record through committing to meet or exceed the legally binding targets agreed upon when Canada signed on to the Kyoto accord.

Total megatonnes of GHG reduced would be 211 within 7 years - starting right away.

Go ahead and disagree with some of the measures, or say they aren't enough or whatever. But let's at least try to get past the falsehood that by proposing this bill the NDP are failing to make any specific recommendations.

Really, so many of the discussions on this board would be so much more straightforward if people took 5 minutes to actually research stuff before they bashed the NDP for the latest item in the news.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 01 November 2006 05:25 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
Really, so many of the discussions on this board would be so much more straightforward if people took 5 minutes to actually research stuff before they bashed the NDP for the latest item in the news.

What troubles me is that some NDP supporters, in the past two days, have for the first time (at least from reading their previous posts) started intimating that Kyoto targets for Canada are unattainable by 2012. Layton has never said that. But it's odd how people sniff things out.

The green strategies you correctly quote are all the reasons I supported Layton and the NDP's stand on climate change - until the day before yesterday. Today, I'm waiting and seeing. Because the issue is not what their "ideal" platform is, so much as whose feet they are prepared to hold to which fire tomorrow, and at what price.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 01 November 2006 05:33 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fair enough, but surely you can recognize the difference between being the government - and therefore able to make and enforce decisions, and being an opposition party.

The NDP has been strongly in support of Kyoto forever. Nowhere have they abandoned it. The bill they've introduced says nothing about abandoning it. The policies they advocate and recommend would meet it, in fact exceed it - 211Mt by 2013 should (I think) exceed Kyoto's requirements. (not 100% sure, but I think so...)

But they can make recommendations and get angry on the sidelines for the next 50 years and it won't make a goddamn bit of difference unless they are in the government. So they have to negotiate, deal and maneuver to make things happen, even if they are less than the ideal.

A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction - something the two main parties have so far failed utterly to do.

Kudos to the NDP for using their relatively small leverage to try to effect some policy and legislative change. In action and outcomes, something is infinitely better than nothing.

In other words, I'd rather see the NDP get us something by negotiating and bargaining than see them get nothing by remaining 'pure'.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 01 November 2006 05:44 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

In other words, I'd rather see the NDP get us something by negotiating and bargaining than see them get nothing by remaining 'pure'.

I totally agree. But I would infinitely prefer getting something, anything, in the short term, rather than getting a commitment to a target which is only verifiable near 2020. Too easy for Harper to agree and too easy to ignore.

But even so, I won't mind - as long as Layton doesn't say, "we can't do Kyoto". I don't think I could stomach that. But you're telling me I don't have to worry about that, so I'll go back to waiting and seeing. And writing emails to the NDP, as I did earlier today, urging them to clarify any possible confusion by re-committing publicly to the internationally agreed targets.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 01 November 2006 06:12 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I totally agree. But I would infinitely prefer getting something, anything, in the short term, rather than getting a commitment to a target which is only verifiable near 2020. Too easy for Harper to agree and too easy to ignore.


Well, the proposed legislation does require 5 year accountable targets and plans, and sets a broader target for later on. Again (as in my post above), the legislation is only one level of action, and not the place to outline specific actions - that happens at the lower levels.

The 5 year targets in the regulations would be the place to look for immediate actions, and that by definition must follow, not precede the legislation. The stuff I listed above gives us some pretty good ideas about what the NDP would do with those 5 year and shorter term goals, and all of them were designed within the Kyoto timeframe.

The goals listed above were created in late 2005 & early 2006 - and showed a 7 year timeframe to meet the Kyoto goals. The 5 year targets, assuming the legislation was passed by early 2007, would take us to 2012 as well. Not as explicit, but they both take us to the same year. Legislation would drive it, and the recommended policies would accomplish it.

I suppose the NDP need to improve their messaging so even the most hostile person can't find a handhold, but jeez, they are doing infinitely more than any of the other parties.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 01 November 2006 06:39 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the response arborman. I should have done SOME research on the NDP website. There's good stuff there, I'd do quite a few things differently, but there is good stuff there.

I'm just baffled in thinking why Layton believes that only legislating tougher and even more immediate goals is going to get Harper to move on this issue. I just don't think Harper is going to institute any of these programs (or programs I would want) that would actually do the work of reducing CO2. I just don't know why everybody is only talking about targets.

I mean, if the liberals didn't act after ratifying Kyoto, why would we believe Harper, someone who hates Kyoto, will act now or at all?

Saying we're going to reach a target in 5 years just doesn't do much. So why not demand that Harper put some of these programs in place?


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 01 November 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You all ask me what makes the Green Party so different from everyone else? It's this type of thing, right here. I would never, ever support a leader willing to sell out like this just to make his party look good enough to get seat #155, or seat #110, or seat #29.

That is the same Green Party that was about to sell out to Garth Turner for seat #1, right? Do you know Turner has a book of environmental advice? One of his tips is "don't gun the engine".

Sorry, but the Green Party has already sold out. They sold out when they abandoned localism for tax breaks and environmental policy for green capitalism (as though such a thing were possible).

And all this talk about Kyoto is just too much hubris. Rather the NDP uses the word "Kyoto" or not is far less important than whether any new law meets or exceeds the commitments and spirit of Kyoto.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 01 November 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Seems to me that the NDP are missing a huge section in their strategic plan. What about agriculture, forestry, the tundra and the boreal forest, the Canadian lungs that clean-up so much of the messes we make? Is that the urban nature of the NDP coming through?
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 01 November 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 01 November 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 01 November 2006 08:44 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Saying we're going to reach a target in 5 years just doesn't do much. So why not demand that Harper put some of these programs in place?

The NDP is already doing that, and has been doing that.

The problem with long term targets is that it's too easy to get away with doing nothing at the outset, which results in waiting until it's too late to meet the long term targets. That's why short term targets are also necessary - so that we can actually push to get something done soon, and so that we can clearly see whether or not we're on track to achieving the long term targets.

If we cannot even get government to agree that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the short term, how can we expect to get them to agree to take steps to do so?


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 01 November 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd just like to break in and briefly say that the party's transportation strategy as outlined above is quite weak. Much of the strategy relies on incentives surrounding "green" cars, and it gives token mention to more rail transportation (not possible within cities like Brandon) and nothing about making public transit more accessible. I'm quite sure those issues are covered by party policy, but I think they have to be given prominence in the basic framework.

And WCG, though I disagree with your assessment of the situation, I admire your passion and committment to the issue of greenhouse gases.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 01 November 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rockin Skookum congrats to the Arborman for setting things straight and shooting down these baseless condemnations of the NDP (saves me from having to dig up all this info and post links, etc.).

Anybody who can call the NDP proposal a sell-out and lump us in with the Liberal and Conservatives is either a lying opportunist or an ignorant flake, as far as I’m concerned.

I know many here may see this as a harsh view. But I have been working on this issue for a long time, growing ever more angry at our inability to get corporatist governments to do anything. Now that we have a chance to put them on the spot, some of our supposed “allies” (if you can even call them that) want to shoot it all down.

quote:
Well, the proposed legislation does require 5 year accountable targets and plans, and sets a broader target for later on. Again (as in my post above), the legislation is only one level of action, and not the place to outline specific actions - that happens at the lower levels.

The 5 year targets in the regulations would be the place to look for immediate actions, and that by definition must follow, not precede the legislation. The stuff I listed above gives us some pretty good ideas about what the NDP would do with those 5 year and shorter term goals, and all of them were designed within the Kyoto timeframe.

The goals listed above were created in late 2005 & early 2006 - and showed a 7 year timeframe to meet the Kyoto goals. The 5 year targets, assuming the legislation was passed by early 2007, would take us to 2012 as well. Not as explicit, but they both take us to the same year. Legislation would drive it, and the recommended policies would accomplish it.[/QUOTE}

This is pretty much how I read it as well. I don’t know how anyone who’s in the know about Kyoto or similar efforts to address GHG emissions can call this an abandonment of the principle.

[QUOTE] You all ask me what makes the Green Party so different from everyone else? It's this type of thing, right here. I would never, ever support a leader willing to sell out like this just to make his party look good enough to get seat #155, or seat #110, or seat #29.


Well, I, for one, will never ask you that, since I know for a fact that the “Green” Party is not only not different from everyone else, but that it’s pretty much like the Liberals—spouting off high-minded ideals and commitments they, for the most part don’t even understand, let alone support, yet clinging to the same old corporate capitalist economics only with a green paint job.

Of course, as far as I’m concerned, the NDP is also too compromised in many respects. But it certainly doesn’t suffer from that kind of Jekyll and Hyde problem.

quote:
I don't want to hear anything anymore about where were going to be in CO2 reductions by 2010, or 2025 or 20fucking50! I want to hear about what were going to do now, right the fuck now, to actually get there.

Then quit goofing off and back up this proposal. The only way we will be able to meeting these targets is by starting some serious initiatives now—as in this year.

quote:
You know why none of the parties are talking about HOW we reduce CO2 emmissions? It's easier.

The NDP is. Check out the web site, or at least read the Arborman’s post.

And, no, I don’t expect the Conservatives to do anything seriously about addressing GHG emissions regardless of what they claim or agree to (and I’ll be as surprised as a stigmata case if they do). The important thing for the NDP is to push this issue to the max—because, regardless of what the other parties say or do, it’s the right thing to do.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 01 November 2006 11:01 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But even so, I won't mind - as long as Layton doesn't say, "we can't do Kyoto". I don't think I could stomach that. But you're telling me I don't have to worry about that, so I'll go back to waiting and seeing.

Unionist, for the 150th time, Layton has not wavered one iota in his commitment to Kyoto. He supports the private member's bill that calls for meeting Kyoto targets, the NDP has the only solid plan to achieve those targets, and discussing medium and long-term targets in the post-Kyoto period does not mean Jack thinks "we can't do Kyoto" at all.

That's why leading environmental groups in Canada have supported Jack's private member's bill. In this news release, the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation laud Jack's efforts and confirm that his bill does not detract at all from the Kyoto targets:

quote:
Today, NDP leader Jack Layton tabled a private member's bill that would set Canada on a path to achieve an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels, with interim targets for every five-year period beginning in 2015. Leading jurisdictions have taken on similar targets, which reflect the scale of reductions needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

Mr. Layton's bill complements Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez's private member's bill, Bill C-288, which would require Canada to meet its Kyoto target in the 2008-2012 time period. Mr. Rodriguez's bill is currently being studied by the House of Commons Environment committee, and is on track to be back in the House of Commons for a final debate by mid-December.

In May, the Bloc Québécois won majority support in the House for a motion calling on the federal government to meet its Kyoto obligations.

"Canada must meet its legal obligations under Kyoto, and C-288 is critical in making sure that happens. Mr. Layton's bill builds on C-288 to provide Canada with medium and long-term greenhouse gas targets that measure up to what the science and economics show is needed," said Matthew Bramley, director of the Pembina Institute's climate change program.


This from 2 of the strongest pro-Kyoto groups in Canada who are not affiliated with the NDP at all. You can criticize Jack's strategy, tactics, etc all you want, but please, can we put the "Jack is abandoning Kyoto" BS to bed now that it's been conclusively dismissed by leading environmentalists? I won't hold my breath, unionist, but there's always hope for a meeting of the minds


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

posted 02 November 2006 04:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

This from 2 of the strongest pro-Kyoto groups in Canada who are not affiliated with the NDP at all. You can criticize Jack's strategy, tactics, etc all you want, but please, can we put the "Jack is abandoning Kyoto" BS to bed now that it's been conclusively dismissed by leading environmentalists?


I haven't said he abandoned Kyoto - I'm just asking what kind of deal he is striking - because (as I've said) it is impossible for Harper to take any meaningful action whatsoever against the oil and gas barons.

And one of the two groups you quoted understands why people like me are looking for answers:

Environmentalists apprehensive about NDP-Conservative deal on clean air

quote:
"Some people are apprehensive," Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation said Wednesday.

"The opposition was united around Kyoto and the Rodriguez bill and the government was clear it was only interested in delay.

"It was very clear where things were going. Now there's a lot more balls in the air and it makes people antsy."

Marshall said there is also puzzlement over a private member's bill put forward by Layton on Tuesday that calls for action on climate change but makes no mention of the Kyoto Protocol.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 02 November 2006 05:33 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I haven't said he abandoned Kyoto - I'm just asking what kind of deal he is striking - because (as I've said) it is impossible for Harper to take any meaningful action whatsoever against the oil and gas barons.

I wonder if that's why Jack said that he was disappointed with his meeting with Harper, and said that Harper doesn't understand the issue.

I haven't seen much evidence of "striking deals" -- I've just seen Jack trying to get Harper to do something to address the issue, and Harper refusing to do anything beyond capitulating to NDP demands to send the "Clean (aka 'Hot') Air Act" to committee before second reading.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2006 05:40 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
Rockin Skookum congrats to the Arborman for setting things straight and shooting down these baseless condemnations of the NDP (saves me from having to dig up all this info and post links, etc.).

Sorry, but Arborman has said sweet fuck all, about my primary concern.

All these figures, plans and intitatives are as maleable as dog turds when it comes to this kind of thing, as the tooing an frowing over what makes "good science" in terms of the environment over the last 20 years has proved. I don't need to read Crighton to know this, but simply have to look at the completely variance of opinions coming from varying sources within the environmental movement. I am no biologist or climatologist.

In my view, if enough experts can agree that something is possibly beneficial then yeah, I support it. I haven't once questioned wether or not Laytons plan is better or worse than Kyoto, in fact I agree that it is likely better, but that is not the issues for me.

But I do understand something about process and negotiated settlement of disputes, and what is essential, and important about clear support for the Kyoto Accord is the affirmation of multi-lalateral approach as opposed to the unilateral approach.

Having a new peace process every fucking week has done absolutely no good for the Palestinians over the last 10 years, and at the base of that problem is that no consistent bilateral mechanism of negotiation, which is respected by both sides, is allowed to take shape.

This problem reminds me very much of the problem associated with Areil Sharon's recent unilateral pull out from the Gaza Strip. This intiative was very positive in many ways, but disasterous in others. Primarily, it was disaterous because it flouted the bilateral negotiation process which is at the heart of resolving the problem in total. And the actual result is that there the number of settlers occupying Palestinian land has actually increased not decreased. This because if Israel does not need to consult the Palestinian Authorities when it withdraws settlers, it certainly has no need to consult them when it sends even more to the West Bank, something it has already done.

In the mean time Areil Sharon got to look good for the cameras because he could claim he was doing even more than anyone else before him. But the main thing for him politically was that the Palestinians should be non-entities in the process as a whole.

By penning an "made in canada" solution to green house gas emission reduction, the NDP is supporting the unilateral approach, and flouting the mulitlateral approach that is essential to resolving the issue of climate change as a global problem, and encouraging the principle that nations may determine on their own what makes sense for them regardless of what Kyoto says.

This stance you endorsed just yesterday by lecturing me about how Kyoto was really just the name of Japanese city.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2006 06:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And in this vein, you would do well to read what the David Suzuki foundation is saying closely.

quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

This from 2 of the strongest pro-Kyoto groups in Canada who are not affiliated with the NDP at all. You can criticize Jack's strategy, tactics, etc all you want, but please, can we put the "Jack is abandoning Kyoto" BS to bed now that it's been conclusively dismissed by leading environmentalists? I won't hold my breath, unionist, but there's always hope for a meeting of the minds


The Pembina people make explicit this point:

quote:
"Canada must meet its legal obligations under Kyoto, and C-288 is critical in making sure that happens. Mr. Layton's bill builds on C-288 to provide Canada with medium and long-term greenhouse gas targets that measure up to what the science and economics show is needed," said Matthew Bramley, director of the Pembina Institute's climate change program.

Layton's bill can only build on c-288 if he also forces its acceptance, which he is unlikely to do. C-288 would actually be redundant if Layton's bill had also affirmed Kyoto.

Obiviously, all the major environmental people agree that affirmation of Kyoto is key. The wording is clear: "Canada must meet its legal obligations under Kyoto" is the exact phrase.

And now there is this from the Suzuki people:

quote:
They also fear Layton's move will distract attention from a rival bill put forward by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez that would require the government to respect the emissions-cutting targets of the Kyoto Protocol.

"Some people are apprehensive," Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation said Wednesday.

"The opposition was united around Kyoto and the Rodriguez bill and the government was clear it was only interested in delay.

"It was very clear where things were going. Now there's a lot more balls in the air and it makes people antsy."

Marshall said there is also puzzlement over a private member's bill put forward by Layton on Tuesday that calls for action on climate change but makes no mention of the Kyoto Protocol.


news artilce

It is not exaclty clear to me that the Layton people ever consult with the specialists before making decisions.

Not that I am a big fan of Suzuki but you brought it up.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 02 November 2006 06:21 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Unionist, for the 150th time, Layton has not wavered one iota in his commitment to Kyoto. He supports the private member's bill that calls for meeting Kyoto targets, the NDP has the only solid plan to achieve those targets, and discussing medium and long-term targets in the post-Kyoto period does not mean Jack thinks "we can't do Kyoto" at all.


YOu know there are 30 million people in Canada and there is ONE individual who calls him/herself "unionist" (but whose views bear no resemblence to those of anyone I have ever met in the trade union movement). Do you really want to keep wasting hours debating with this one individual about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether "certs is a candymint or certs is a breathmint"???

I have better things to do with my time.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2006 06:26 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I feel elevated. My perspectives have been broadened. I am that much taller than I was before having read this wise and fact filled post.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 02 November 2006 09:08 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


By penning an "made in canada" solution to green house gas emission reduction, the NDP is supporting the unilateral approach, and flouting the mulitlateral approach that is essential to resolving the issue of climate change as a global problem, and encouraging the principle that nations may determine on their own what makes sense for them regardless of what Kyoto says.


Well, every country is supposed to meets its targets in its own way - nothing wrong with laying out the way we should be meeting ours. The point is to meet the objectives, not to copy the approaches of others.

So making suggestions about how Canada should meet the goals is not giving up on multilateral action. It's describing what our part of that multilateral action should be.

Again, the NDP has not given up on Kyoto. They have not abandoned it, they are the only party that is pushing it and taking it seriously (only party with a presence in HOC anyways).

Here's my take on the placement or non-placement of a reference to meeting Kyoto in the bill they just introduced.
1. Kyoto has already been ratified. It's the law of the land - it doesn't need to be passed again.
2. Placing it into the bill would open that up to being overturned - in the public if not in actual legal reality. If the private members bill were to be defeated, then the Cons could point to its Kyoto provision and pretend that the HOC had abandoned Kyoto - and pretend that we are no longer obligated to meet the goals.

Legally speaking, Kyoto is a done deal. In practice, it depends on action, which hasn't bee forthcoming. The NDP are pushing for action, and they get ripped for it. Go figure.

And I agree that their transportation plan is a bit weak - I'd like to see more than 7 Mt cut myself. My understanding is that their recommendations are based on cost estimates as well, and the other things would have a larger benefit in the short-term (retrofitting, efficiency measures etc), while transportation infrastructure has huge costs. So meet Kyoto with what can be done quickly and comparatively cheaply (with long-term benefits), and work on transportation over time. I may be wrong about that, however.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2006 09:12 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It would not be "overturned," as we know that any no bill which overtly rejected it would not pass the parliment. However, in essence, by not affirming its centrality as a basis to his legislation Layton is in fact implicitly overturning it by your logic.

What a weird series of inversions. In fact by your logic the NDP should not be supporting c-228, because it affords an opportunity for Kyoto to be rejected. The corner you have placed yourself in by arguing thus, is one where wether or not the CAB passes the NDP must make the government pass C-228 will be rejected, or Canada will have rejected Kyoto.

All legislation which is based in previous protocols mentions those protcols. It is pro-forma.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 02 November 2006 09:32 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your middle sentence there didn't make any sense at all, as far as I could tell.

I'm saying that the new bill is building on the existing Kyoto law. Being a private members bill from the opposition, it is relatively unlikely to succeed (still needs to be pushed, but lets be realistic). I suspect that the Cons would use its defeat to claim that Kyoto had been defeated, if Kyoto was listed in the new bill.

Not that it would be the case legally, but it might in the media and the public view.

I could be very wrong in my speculation on that. But I disagree with the core assumption that by introducing this bill the NDP is abandoning Kyoto. It isn't, no matter what the Liberals try to say otherwise.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2006 09:38 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
2. Placing it into the bill would open that up to being overturned - in the public if not in actual legal reality. If the private members bill were to be defeated, then the Cons could point to its Kyoto provision and pretend that the HOC had abandoned Kyoto - and pretend that we are no longer obligated to meet the goals.


The corner you have placed yourself in by arguing thus, is one where wether or not the CAB passes the NDP must make the government pass C-228 or Canada will have rejected Kyoto.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 November 2006 11:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

YOu know there are 30 million people in Canada and there is ONE individual who calls him/herself "unionist" (but whose views bear no resemblence to those of anyone I have ever met in the trade union movement). Do you really want to keep wasting hours debating with this one individual about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether "certs is a candymint or certs is a breathmint"???

I have better things to do with my time.


Well, then go do them. Those who wish to debate with unionist can do so. Those who don't wish to don't have to. What I don't want to see is you telling people who they should and shouldn't talk to on babble, or keep discouraging people to not talk to certain people just because you don't want to talk to them. This isn't grade 3.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 02 November 2006 01:33 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

The corner you have placed yourself in by arguing thus, is one where wether or not the CAB passes the NDP must make the government pass C-228 or Canada will have rejected Kyoto.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


No, because it is a separate bill. Had the NDP made Kyoto a central aspect of the bill, they would have run that risk. They did not, so that risk is not the issue. I looked at what I said before, and it's pretty clear, but hopefully you will get it this time.

I also said that I am speculating. I don't know for sure. I do know that Kyoto is a part of our laws - it has been ratified. We don't need to ratify it again, we do need to do something about it. That's how I interpret the NDP private member's bill - pushing for action. Clearly you interpret it otherwise - shocking that you would interpret an NDP action negatively, I would never in a million years have been able to see it coming from you, of all people.

So, to recap - because it appears necessary - putting Kyoto into the bill in any major way would have given the Cons a way to claim it had been scrapped. The NDP didn't, and therefore denied the Cons that opportunity.

Go ahead and misinterpret it again if you insist, but that's what I said.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2006 02:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And clearly you accept the fact that the NDP did not explicitly put Kyoto in the Laytons bill because they were prefiguring a CPC objection. Therefore the NDP are accepting the CPC premise of dealing with environmental issues through a "made in Canada" approach, and Layton has conceded this point.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Constitutional Peasant
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13429

posted 02 November 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for Constitutional Peasant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All this talk about the specifics of parliamentary debate over global warming is important, but it worries me that discussions around such issues often lack discussion of personal responsibility. When it comes down to it, individuals are responsible for a sizeable chunk of greenhouse gas emissions, waste production, air pollution etc. The small things like leaving lights on, leaving taps running, bringing a backpack grocery shopping instead of using plastic bags all add up. Furthermore, larger choices like not owning a car, not owning a dryer or a dishwasher, not using an air-conditioner all reduce pollution in a big way. Supporting parties in parliament to deal with global warming is only one part of the solution.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 02 November 2006 06:23 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
All this talk about the specifics of parliamentary debate over global warming is important, but it worries me that discussions around such issues often lack discussion of personal responsibility. When it comes down to it, individuals are responsible for a sizeable chunk of greenhouse gas emissions, waste production, air pollution etc. The small things like leaving lights on, leaving taps running, bringing a backpack grocery shopping instead of using plastic bags all add up. Furthermore, larger choices like not owning a car, not owning a dryer or a dishwasher, not using an air-conditioner all reduce pollution in a big way. Supporting parties in parliament to deal with global warming is only one part of the solution.

Not to entirely excuse people from consuming too much energy and other resources by personal choices, but the economic system does not make environmentally sound choices easy or convenient. Actions of government can assist in making it more convenient, through regulating incandescent light bulbs out of existence for example. That action alone would make a measureable difference in GHG emissions.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 02 November 2006 07:12 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
And clearly you accept the fact that the NDP did not explicitly put Kyoto in the Laytons bill because they were prefiguring a CPC objection. Therefore the NDP are accepting the CPC premise of dealing with environmental issues through a "made in Canada" approach, and Layton has conceded this point.

I disagree. He hasn't conceded anything. Trying to get something done with a government that clearly plans to do as little as possible means working for incremental gains. I disagree with your assertion that by pushing for the possible (in the current house) they are abandoning the perfect.

We can be as pure as we want, but if that means nothing happens, rather than something if we participate in negotiations, then I'll take action over purity. Maybe that makes me a sellout, but I guess I'll leave the purity and highmindedness to you.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
navigator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13318

posted 02 November 2006 07:23 PM      Profile for navigator        Edit/Delete Post
I really have difficulty in understanding the premise of this topic. If the NDP are pushing for ommediate action on climate change, then they must be supporting Kyoto.

It seems that Layton is also looking to Kyoto No. 2 in demanding targets that go beyond No. 1 in succedding decades. Just ike Britain and some other countries that have lived up to the Kyoto agreement have done.


From: Oshawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2006 07:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

I disagree. He hasn't conceded anything. Trying to get something done with a government that clearly plans to do as little as possible means working for incremental gains. I disagree with your assertion that by pushing for the possible (in the current house) they are abandoning the perfect.


Firstly, it is more or less a truism in any negotiation that you do not prefigure the response of the person you are negotiating with.

Your negotiation starts on the premise that you have something they want (in this case to appear like they care about the environment) and they have something you want (the ultimate power of do something about the environemnt.)

In any negotiation you load up your plate with more or less everything that you desire, then in the process of negotiation, you take things out one by one, as per explicit agreements until an agreement is made. By prefiguring what the other side will want you have already hobbled yourself, by elminating an agenda item without them having even talked to you about it or getting anything in return.

I don't know what it is about Jack Layton's desire to be persieved as a nice guy by the CPC is, but appaerntly it is pretty strong.

The best position would have been to include reference to Kyoto, and then be publicly percieved to have given way, for the sake of getting something else.

In this case the NDP has left itself open to a fairly legitimate attack by the Liberal, clearly, and it is carrying weight Even the David Suzuki foundation people are questioning the stand taken.

Secondly, the only reason that Kyoto might be a deal breaker vis any agreement with the Tories, is because the Tories and their allies in Washington are opposed to the multi-lateral framework, and prefer a unilateral (made in Canada) approach. The US does not want to be pressured into the international treaty.

The amount of emmission actually reduced is obviously not relevant, as even you seem confident that the real stumbling block is Kyoto, not the specifics of the emissions targets. In fact Layton is even claiming that these targets are tougher than Kyoto, but he does not think this will be a deal breaker, of the kind that inserting a Kyoto reference would be, as you have also affirmed.

So, clearly the NDP has conceded in principle to the made in canada approach, because they have excluded the any mention of Kyoto.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2006 07:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by navigator:
I really have difficulty in understanding the premise of this topic. If the NDP are pushing for ommediate action on climate change, then they must be supporting Kyoto.

It seems that Layton is also looking to Kyoto No. 2 in demanding targets that go beyond No. 1 in succedding decades. Just ike Britain and some other countries that have lived up to the Kyoto agreement have done.


The reason a multilateral approach is essential to this process is that it does not matter a damn if Canada has the most stringent guiedlines of any country on the planet, if other countries are not likewise obliged to also comply. This is true, largley because major industrial poluters can merely move their operations to more business friendly environements in order to by pass Canada's ore stringent guidlines. Hence you have not actually reduced emmission merely moved the source of the emmissions to another venue.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
navigator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13318

posted 02 November 2006 08:06 PM      Profile for navigator        Edit/Delete Post
But many countries have already met their obligations without moving operations. Our Kyoto agreement is a multi-lateral agreement and we cannot meet our requirements by moving operations. The oil sands will not change their location and our airlines will have to still fly within Canada. Millions of us will still drive over the same roads and do all the other things we do.

Any operations that can be moved account for a relatively small part of our problem.And quite a number of corporations are signing on and have reduced emissions.

I think I read somewhere that SUV's, Vans, and Light trucks produce 40% more emissions than the average car. We could do something about that quite easily by making all those automobile status seekers pay for their status intil they saw the light. Just one of many things. We could develop rail transportation and discourage long haul trucking. Transportation in all its forms is responsible for about one quarter of CO2 emissions. Encouraging local produce; even subsidizing it to be competitive with distant suppliers, would cause a significant reduction and a lower long run cost.

There is a myriad things that can be done: many of them fairly quickly. I would assume that some of these are in the plans of the NDP for the short term.


From: Oshawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 November 2006 08:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

I don't know what it is about Jack Layton's desire to be persieved as a nice guy by the CPC is, but appaerntly it is pretty strong.


It's called negotiating, which you made mention of just prior to implying above that the NDP should throw their weight around, albeit with just 29 seats, and do some hard bargaining with our 24 percent stoogocrats in Ottawa and their ideological twins in the disgraced Liberal Party Inc. And I think the NDP is attempting to do just that except that they are forced to use a little more moxy than making bigger demands than Canadians have granted them voices in power. Still, one NDP MP is worth 103 Liberal stoogocrats on any day of the year, imo.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 November 2006 08:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And as I explained, or tried to explain. It is not in the habit of professional negotiators to say, "hey guys we want to negotiate, just so you know we want to negotiate, we are going to give you the one thing you really want before we really seriously discuss the issue of what we get."
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 November 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
And as I explained, or tried to explain. It is not in the habit of professional negotiators to say, "hey guys we want to negotiate, just so you know we want to negotiate, we are going to give you the one thing you really want before we really seriously discuss the issue of what we get."

What did the Liberals do for climate change for 12 years, and will the NDP be able to count on a neutered Liberal Party Inc., to do anything at this point ?. It seems to me that Stoogocratic Party Inc. #1, with 124 seats, is in full sync with Stoogocratic Party Inc. #2, with 103 seats, and not so much in sync with the NDP, with 29 seats, as per usual. And you're saying the NDP isn't having it all their way ?. It's because the two old line parties and their corporate and big banking agendas are identical. There's no daylight between the two old line parties, see --> TORYLIBERALREFORMATORYKLEPTOCONSERVIBERANOS Man, that's a lota suits who've never carried a lunch pail to work in their soft little hands one day in their cushy lives.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 November 2006 08:55 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
124 black cats + 103 white cats = 227 cats
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 02 November 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
But, Fidel, do we have any indication that the NDP did better when they were in charge?

We need a leader, who is primarily concerned about Canada and not playing party politic. But since party politics seems to be the game these days, that makes it all the more important that we keep to the Kyoto accord to keep us on track on the greenhouse gas issue.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 November 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
But, Fidel, do we have any indication that the NDP did better when they were in charge?

Social Democrat governments, and similar to the NDP, have readily observable records of achievement and performance in areas of the world where advanced democracy is the rule. Canada is still a second rate under-achieving Northern Puerto Rico after more than 100 years of rule by our two old line parties with Stoogocratic Liberal rule for 70 of them. No, the NDP has never held the reins of power in Ottawa. If they did, then Canada would likely rank somewhere in the top ten most economically competitive nations along with four or five real social democracies ranking high in the top five on a consistent basis for the last 20 years or however long Harvard Business School's rankings have been published.

quote:
We need a leader, who is primarily concerned about Canada and not playing party politic.

You can exercise your right to democratic protest one day every four years. If you are happy with Liberal-Conservative and vice versa autocratic rule of the past 100 years in this corporate preserve of natural wealth and under-developed potential, then support them with your vote. And if not, then vote NDP, or don't vote at all like 35 to 40 percent of eligible Canadian voters do as a form of passive protest. But don't complain that the NDP has ever had too much power in Ottawa where it counts and not made something of their chance to change things for the better. And please don't suggest to us that the NDP can do anything more than bluff a weak hand in this game of bullshit poker. The two old line parties are only biding their time right now until the polls look good enough to ditch the NDP. They'd much rather play footsy with each other than have to face even one more NDP MP in Ottawa. I've said my bit, and that's what I think about bullshit Canadian politics. It's a charade.

[ 02 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 02 November 2006 10:26 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
And as I explained, or tried to explain. It is not in the habit of professional negotiators to say, "hey guys we want to negotiate, just so you know we want to negotiate, we are going to give you the one thing you really want before we really seriously discuss the issue of what we get."

And I think the one thing the Conservatives really want is to do nothing at all, an option the NDP are not giving them (within their power).

The other party did nothing at all and got accused of doing too much by the Cons, there's no way they want to do anything. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd abandon what environmental protections we do have.

So the NDP using their position in the House to keep this issue front and center is good policy and good politics.

I realize that there is nothing, but nothing, that the NDP can do to please you Cueball, but at least they are trying something. The other parties aren't doing a goddamn thing.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 November 2006 06:59 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I support the NDP position on Afghanistan. That pleases me. And you know that. But then perhaps that's just another inconvenient truth, which you are brushing over for the sake of aguement, based on partisan positioning.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 03 November 2006 09:38 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sometimes when I get mad and overreact I leave the site for a couple days to get my head in order. This was one of those times.

First of all, I'd like to thank arborman for his somewhat more levelheaded response.

I probably (okay, definately) shouldn't have said that the NDP are selling out on this issue (although I'm still worried they're taking either the easy or very wrong route here) I still think they are taking the totally wrong approach in trying to get some movement on climate change action under a conservative minority government.

I just think that continuing to only legislate and negotiate targets is not going to hold the conservative government accountable for their actions. Even look at the 5 year targets. That gives Harper plenty of time to say he's doing something about climate change, without actually doing something about climate change, before the next election where he could get a majority and then blow what environmental programs we have all to hell.

quote:
1. Kyoto has already been ratified. It's the law of the land - it doesn't need to be passed again.

Exactly. But despite the fact that this is still law, the liberals only made a very pathetic attempt to actually meet the targets, and weren't effictively held accountable until a couple years ago. Now the conservatives are in, and they aren't even pretending to stick to this target.

What makes you think they'll actually stick to Layton's?

And that's why I think it would be better to force Harper to institute programs than to simply get him to stick to targets. (is that something for the budget? or for legislation? or for the burocracy? You seem to know more about the actual workings of government than me arborman)


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 03 November 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I support the NDP position on Afghanistan. That pleases me. And you know that. But then perhaps that's just another inconvenient truth, which you are brushing over for the sake of aguement, based on partisan positioning.

Fair point.

quote:
WCG:What makes you think they'll actually stick to Layton's?

Not much. But it's a start. First get them to make commitments, then hold them responsible for keeping them. But we get nowhere without a start. The NDP don't have a lot of leverage, but at least they are trying. The Liberals are bemoaning the loss of Kyoto, an agreement they did sweet fuck all about in their 12 years of opportunity. The BQ are supportive, in their narrow provincial way, and the Conservatives are hostile. Until the Greens get a seat, all we have are the NDP trying to make something, anything happen.

quote:
wcg:And that's why I think it would be better to force Harper to institute programs than to simply get him to stick to targets. (is that something for the budget? or for legislation? or for the burocracy? You seem to know more about the actual workings of government than me arborman)

Well, I don't know enough, but legislation is what drives regulation. Regulations are created by the bureaucracy to give legislation structure and impact. That's where the Liberals failed - in creating effective regulations.

But regulations need goals - targets - to have any utility. So we do need targets, then we need to actually make things happen by forcing the regulations to be created and enforced.

I appreciate and support the concern about sidelining Kyoto. I personally think it is a crucial but inadequate step to saving ourselved - hell, I wrote my MA thesis on it. But I also appreciate the actual legislative environment we are currently stuck with. I'd rather see something happen, and see someone (the NDP at this time) keeping the issue front and center.

Ultimately whoever is in government is going to have to do something, if we all force them to. Until that happens - probably after some dreadful disaster I'm sure - it's up to those of us who don't have our heads in the sands to push as hard as we can to make some, any, improvements. For that I'm glad the NDP are pushing this issue. I wish the Greens were in the HOC to push it with them. And I really wish the fucking mainline corporatist parties would step up to the plate.

Until then, I'll take any action over smug and cynical inaction.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 03 November 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FWIW - this from an
NDP press release today...

quote:
THEY SAY: "Jack Layton today introduced a bill that effectively signals the NDP's abandonment of the Kyoto Accord."

WE SAY: The NDP is strongly supporting the Kyoto Protocol. Layton's Climate Change Accountability Act meets and goes beyond the Kyoto protocol, setting target reductions for 2015 and at five year intervals until 2050. These short-, medium- and long-term targets are what is required to stop dangerous global climate change.



From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 03 November 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Only in the logic of politics is insisting on something tantamount to abandoning it.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 November 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If layton was insisting on the Kyoto emissions guidelines he would have put it in his bill.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 November 2006 12:12 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Change clean-air bill or face Commons vote, Layton tells Tories

quote:
The NDP's private member bill calls for immediate targets to be established within six months, implemented within a year, and updated ever five years thereafter. It also calls for emissions to be cut by 25 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020, aiming to cut total emissions by 80 per cent of those levels by 2050.

Mr. Layton's private members bill goes much further than the Tories' controversial Clean Air Act, which looks to set greenhouse-gas reduction target of 45 to 65 per cent of 1990 levels, with absolute reductions beginning in 2020.


And what contribution are the 102 Liberal Party Inc. backbenchers making towards the global warming issue ?

“He never once mentions Kyoto. It does not include any short-term targets. It is a complete abandonment of Kyoto,” said Liberal House leader Ralph "Mr Income Trust Insider" Goodale, whose Liberal government did basically nothing for the environment over twelve long years

So, what did the Liberal party actually do about global warming over TWELVE consecutive years in power besides nothing ? - they didn't do anything. Nada, not a bloody thing besides point a finger of blame at other countries, like Russia, a country whose industrial base was virtually wiped out by perestroika and the capitalist promise of an economic long run. Not only is capitalism itself a pointless exercise in excessive oil consumption, stoogocrats like Paul Martin wanted to lay blame on countries that would have no problems with meeting Kyoto emissions reductions, like Russia. It was a trained response from our Liberal stoogocrats looking for a pat on the head from Warshington. Just pull the strings in their backs and listen to the pre-recorded Warshington-friendly cackle. Exactly what Ralph Goodale and 102 other Liberal Party seat warmers are still doing hanging around and stinking up Ottawa is anybody's guess. Oh yeah, that's right, their job is to appear to be an opposition party for cosmetic appearance sake and use Belinda's sex life as a diversion from that party's total lack of interest in what matters. It's said that political conservatives are fascinated with sex to the point of mental illness, and this is but one of dozens of similarities between the two old line parties. They are identical.

[ 04 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 04 November 2006 11:45 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skookum congrats again to all those who are pointing out repeatedly the fact that this motion incorporates the Kyoto prescriptions without using the name, thereby putting the CONS on the spot to agree to something.

Sadly the thread just seems to be going around in circles with various naysayers--and, yes, they are acting like naysayers on this matter--continuing to cry sell-out regardless of what information and perspective is laid out here.

quote:
Only in the logic of politics is insisting on something tantamount to abandoning it.

The fact is this motion doesn't abandon anything. Yet they will say it is simply because the Kyoto name has been dropped. A sad fact is that only in the logic of politics is image more important than substance.

quote:
If layton was insisting on the Kyoto emissions guidelines he would have put it in his bill.

My point is made. The fact is the people who hold this baseless view that somehow the NDP is compromising its GHG emissions goals to less than what Kyoto overall calls for will continue to repeat that line regardless of what the substance is.

The fact that this is an NDP initiative to push the CONS into doing something about emissions that they will most likely not take, thereby strengthening the NDP's credibility as a positive force in the Parliament is what they don't seem to like.

The fact that it's not the organizations they support that are doing this, or that it's an organization they oppose (as in the NDP), is more likely why they oppose this motion.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 November 2006 01:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right, and of course multli-lateralism is a dead issue.

Like, as if it aint true that the Bush adminstration, aside from it more obvious blundering, has more or less made sure that its standing legacy is the destruction of muli-lateral process in international relations, including the wholesale ripping up of almost every single protocol, treaty, conference, or accord whose effect would be make the USA as liable to control by international law.

Rather than repeatedly side stepping this point, which is at the heart of the whole Kyoto issue, as I have raised it here, and patting yourselves on the collective back, you could at least confront what it is I have been saying, as opposed to finnessing the point for the sake of your particular party alliegence.

Jack Layton's bill is a finesse, which sidestepps the whole issue of ensuring the Kyoto is entrenched as international law, so that other countries can point to Canada and say: "Look Canada signed and they aren't adhereing to 2012 6% reductions, so why should we? Their legislation doesn't even mention Kyoto as a basis for their law."

[ 04 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Is this it?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13083

posted 04 November 2006 03:04 PM      Profile for Is this it?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At the risk of going out on a limb I'd rather we actually clean up our air then lend credence to a UN wank-off jamboree.

If anyone thinks that George W Bush, or Tony Blair, or Olusegun Obasanjo or Hu Jintao is actually going to even notice what Canada puts into their Clean Air Legislation much less say, "Holy shit! Stephen Harper put the word 'Kyoto' in a Bill that passed the Canadian Parliament. It's time to re-write all of our goddam plans! Why didn't we see this coming?" they have been taking crazy pills.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 November 2006 04:07 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
The fact that it's not the organizations they support that are doing this, or that it's an organization they oppose (as in the NDP), is more likely why they oppose this motion.

Those who make such accusations are those who have no thoughts deeper than partisan ones. They just can't imagine that someone doesn't support or oppose any of these opportunistic political formations for what they call themselves, but can support or oppose any or all of them depending on what they do. It makes genuine political debate impossible.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 November 2006 05:40 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find amusing how SOME people go on this rampage to attack Jack Layton for not being "pure" enough on this issue and yet the same people just a few months ago were busy DEIFYING Buzz Hargrove after he hugged Paul Martin in public and told everyone to vote Liberal. (You remember the Liberals? that party that rules us for 13 years and did sweet fuck all when it came to global warming)
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 November 2006 05:52 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[Three Stooges]I'm Googlin Liberanos and environment this minute. It looks like Google's thinkin about it, but it aint woikin.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 04 November 2006 06:07 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
Jack is very smooth,almost slick,in projecting his positions but rather bland.He needs some pizazz,panache,elan,chic so that he stands out from the crowd.

Change that rodent under his nose into a neomustaccio,maybe shave his head and definitely take surreptitious break-dance lessons in case an impromptu occasion arises.(never,ever, forget PM's impromptu air guitar fiasco-Trendy trudeau would have pulled that off)

More media attention means increased exposure to get the message out.Look what a makeover did for Steve.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 04 November 2006 06:09 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[Three Stooges]I'm Googlin Liberanos and environment this minute. It looks like Google's thinkin about it, but it aint woikin.

Try Libranos


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

posted 04 November 2006 06:45 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A credible, effective Kyoto plan must meet the following criteria:

1. The plan must associate clear and credible amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions to a set of specific Government initiatives with clear implementation targets and timelines. The total emission reductions from these initiatives must be sufficient to meet Canada’s Kyoto target over the period stipulated by the Protocol, 2008–12. While we also believe Canada should adopt longer-term national targets for the much larger reductions in GHG emissions needed to prevent dangerous climate change, longer-term targets can in no way replace Canada’s obligation to meet its Kyoto target during 2008–12. [...]

6. The plan must not include targets for industry for the period post-2012. In other words, the Government must not tie its own hands by allocating portions of Canada’s allowed emissions levels post-2012 before those levels have even been negotiated.


From a January 12, 2005 open letter to Paul Martin by Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sierra Club, the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, and the Pembina Institute.

[ 04 November 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 04 November 2006 07:15 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
unionist -- since Jack and the NDP haven't done either #1 or #6, am I to interpret this as that you're supporting the NDP position now?
From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 November 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Is this it?:
At the risk of going out on a limb I'd rather we actually clean up our air then lend credence to a UN wank-off jamboree.

If anyone thinks that George W Bush, or Tony Blair, or Olusegun Obasanjo or Hu Jintao is actually going to even notice what Canada puts into their Clean Air Legislation much less say, "Holy shit! Stephen Harper put the word 'Kyoto' in a Bill that passed the Canadian Parliament. It's time to re-write all of our goddam plans! Why didn't we see this coming?" they have been taking crazy pills.


Only if it suits their purposes.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 November 2006 07:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I find amusing how SOME people go on this rampage to attack Jack Layton for not being "pure" enough on this issue and yet the same people just a few months ago were busy DEIFYING Buzz Hargrove after he hugged Paul Martin in public and told everyone to vote Liberal. (You remember the Liberals? that party that rules us for 13 years and did sweet fuck all when it came to global warming)


Keep the wagons in a tight circle. Keep the women and children low, and only squeeze the trigger when you are sure you have a good shot.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 November 2006 08:06 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jack and his tiny posse of NDP'ers have 227 stoogocrats tied down and nowhere to hide before sundown at Red Gap.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 November 2006 08:15 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
unionist -- since Jack and the NDP haven't done either #1 or #6, am I to interpret this as that you're supporting the NDP position now?

I have always supported the NDP position on Kyoto in the past. What is this "interpretation" you are doing? Where do you stand?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 05 November 2006 09:35 PM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well that was a fun read!

Sometimes I find threads very helpful in understanding the reality of an issue, and this is one of those times.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Cameron W ]


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 06 November 2006 05:15 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I have always supported the NDP position on Kyoto in the past. What is this "interpretation" you are doing? Where do you stand?


Well, you haven't said why you posted the quote. It matches Jack's most recent actions. So I'm guessing that means you're supporting Jack's most recent actions now?


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 06 November 2006 05:30 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It looks like the Liberal Party is stealing crib notes from babblers

quote:
“I can’t say I’m surprised by this duplicitous action,” said Mr. Godfrey. “Since the beginning of the Parliament the NDP has been willing to sell out to the Conservative Party when it suits their purposes. Selling out their principles on the Kyoto Accord certainly isn’t too much of a stretch.”

In a cynical political stunt less than 24 hours after asking for a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss a new approach to the fight on global warming, Mr. Layton has tabled a bill that contains not one mention of the Kyoto Accord, and no mention of any short-term targets to curb global warming.

“To have voted in favour of Bill C-288, which explicitly supports the Kyoto protocol, and then turn around and suggest that you can cut a deal with the government when it suits your political purposes is hypocrisy of the highest order,” added Mr. Rodriguez.


Or vice-versa.

I have a problem with the logic here. If Layton voted in favour of Bill C-288, is he not implicitly supporting the short-term 6% by 2012 target laid out in Kyoto? How does introducing a bill that goes beyond 2012 nullify this support?

There are two target's in Bill C-377, with the instruction that interim targets be set for 2015, 2025, 2030, etc. None of those targets dip below the 6% prescribed in Kyoto:

quote:
5. The Government of Canada shall ensure that Canadian greenhouse gas emissions are reduced

(a) as a long-term target, to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by the year 2050; and

(b) as a medium-term target, valid prior to the target plan referred to in subsection 6(1), to a level that is 25% below the 1990 level by the year 2020.


I don't get the issue. Surely Layton can support Bill C-288 while also setting stronger targets further down the road. Kyoto's Annex B only sets conditions for the 2008-2012 period. Presumably, there will be follow-up meetings to further pressure signatories into setting targets beyond 2012, but we haven't had those meetings yet. It's quite unreasonable to demand that Jack mention Kyoto in a bill that tackles targets beyond 2012, because Kyoto doesn't even contain such targets. And screaming that he's abandoned Kyoto is so much bullshit, considering that the two targets in Bill C-377 are more ambitious than the Kyoto target.

Additional info:

This is the paragraph in the Kyoto Protocol which handles targets beyond 2012:

quote:
A3 P9. Commitments for subsequent periods for Parties included in Annex I shall be established in amendments to Annex B to this Protocol, which shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 7. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall initiate the consideration of such commitments at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period referred to in paragraph 1 above.

A21 P7. Amendments to Annexes A and B to this Protocol shall be adopted and enter into force in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 20, provided that any amendment to Annex B shall be adopted only with the written consent of the Party concerned.


So far, the only Amendment to Annex B that I've found is one which adds Belarus to the list of countries (with a 5% reduction). If there are other amendments, I'd appreciate seeing them. The UN's ad hoc working group for climate change is meeting this month to discuss, among other things, the scope of amendments to Annex B.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Briguy ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 November 2006 05:34 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:

Well, you haven't said why you posted the quote. It matches Jack's most recent actions. So I'm guessing that means you're supporting Jack's most recent actions now?


Consider my post as a reminder. As for Jack's most recent actions, I am hoping he will explicitly make the Kyoto targets a condition for NDP support for any legislation. Then my past support for the NDP's position on the environment will continue. I believe in straight talk on issues of such importance. That's why I stopped condemning the NDP's wishy-washy opportunism on Afghanistan the very moment Jack called for bringing the troops home.


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

posted 06 November 2006 05:45 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
I have a problem with the logic here. If Layton voted in favour of Bill C-288, is he not implicitly supporting the short-term 6% by 2012 target laid out in Kyoto? How does introducing a bill that goes beyond 2012 nullify this support?

The only reason I opened the original thread on this subject was to raise a caution about negotiating "long-term" targets with the Conservatives (who are vociferously anti-Kyoto) without reiterating that the binding short-term targets must be met first.

Nowhere, at any time, has Layton suggested that he has abandoned the Kyoto targets - although in reaction to his bill and the negotiations with Harper, some babblers immediately started musing that the 2012 Kyoto target was unachievable! Do you see how dangerous it is not to keep repeating basics? These babblers were doing so, in my estimation, out of misplaced partisan considerations.

For the same reason, I posted the 6-organization letter of January 2005 to Paul Martin - to remind everyone that long-term targets are to be decided internationally, not by "made in Canada" self help.

Layton must be encouraged and supported in sticking to the NDP policy as laid out in its various green policies and initiatives of recent years. These policies are what Canada needs to play its role on GHG emissions internationally, in my opinion.


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

posted 06 November 2006 06:04 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The fact is this motion doesn't abandon anything. Yet they will say it is simply because the Kyoto name has been dropped. A sad fact is that only in the logic of politics is image more important than substance.

I am beginning to understand why you and I seem to disagree so much.

Here is what I said:

quote:
Only in the logic of politics is insisting on something tantamount to abandoning it.

What does that mean to you?

Cueball, in your view Kyoto must be mentioned by name to be implicit? When did you become such an absolutist? Is using the word Kyoto a loyalty oath that will demonstrate the Layton is either "with us or against us" on climate change? Would you reject his stated goals, if they were agreed upon by all parties, on the basis the word "Kyoto" wasn't used? Is a rose no longer a rose by any other name?


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

posted 06 November 2006 06:09 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Is using the word Kyoto a loyalty oath that will demonstrate the Layton is either "with us or against us" on climate change? Would you reject his stated goals, if they were agreed upon by all parties, on the basis the word "Kyoto" wasn't used? Is a rose no longer a rose by any other name?

FM, in fairness, I don't think the essence of the discussion here is about the word Kyoto - at least not in my viewpoint. The question I would like to raise is, whether there is a danger in talking about remote targets while short-term ones have been put in doubt by the Conservative government. I'm sure no one would mind tactically dropping the word "Kyoto" so long as the commitment to a 6% reduction by 2012 over 1990 levels were still an explicit condition for agreeing to any legislation.


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

posted 06 November 2006 06:27 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The question I would like to raise is, whether there is a danger in talking about remote targets while short-term ones have been put in doubt by the Conservative government. I'm sure no one would mind tactically dropping the word "Kyoto" so long as the commitment to a 6% reduction by 2012 over 1990 levels were still an explicit condition for agreeing to any legislation.

Why should it? It is almost 2007. Canada has waited far too long to implement changes that would allow us to meet our Kyoto obligations on time. As f*cked up as the Harpercrites are, it was Martin who was congratulated by the oil industry for not implementing the Kyoto commitments.

The Layton bills leap-frogs the 2012 commitment for a tougher commitment in 2020. My guess is Layton is anticipating the next target levels for Kyoto. I would call it shrewd. There is no point getting twisted in knots trying to reach consensus on a deadline that can't be met anyway and that the both the Liberal and the Cons would get hysterical over.

But you know, I think its all too late anyway. In my view this is like arguing over who gets the steering wheel after we've gone over the bridge.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2006 06:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Cueball, in your view Kyoto must be mentioned by name to be implicit? When did you become such an absolutist? Is using the word Kyoto a loyalty oath that will demonstrate the Layton is either "with us or against us" on climate change? Would you reject his stated goals, if they were agreed upon by all parties, on the basis the word "Kyoto" wasn't used? Is a rose no longer a rose by any other name?

My position on multi-lateral forumlations of international law is consitent.

I opposed the ICTY because it is an ad-hoc tribunal targetting Balkan people, and most Serbs outside of the framework of legitimate ICC procedure. I warned of the dangers implicit in Areil Sharon's unilateral pullout from the Gaza Strip, and on the same basis deeply believe that if the international community is going to hope that it can impact the climate change equation, that such must be done within a multilateral framework.

Ther reality is, if the NDP and Conservatives do not pass legislation that affirms Kyoto, and, likewise does not even bother to institute regulations that at least attempt to meet the Kyoto mandated reductions for 2012, Canada will have set the principle the Kyoto is "negotiable," as international law, evern for signatories.

Are you saying that despite Canada signing the Kyotot protocols, there is going to be no Canadain legislation in place that explicitly enforces the treaty in law? That alone is a breach of Kyoto as far as I can tell.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 November 2006 06:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

It is almost 2007. Canada has waited far too long to implement changes that would allow us to meet our Kyoto obligations on time.

Well, I totally disagree with you. That is fatalism of the first order, and pardon me for saying so, it's exactly what Harper and Ambrose have said.

Jack Layton has not said it is too late to meet our Kyoto obligations on time. It's the Liberals who are accusing him of harbouring that belief (pretty laughable, given who it's coming from!!).

I'm going to wait and see before accusing Jack of having abandoned our Kyoto obligations. So far, the NDP and the Bloc are the only parties in the House who have not done so - and even the Liberals are paying lip service now that they're not in power and don't have to walk the talk. Let's keep encouraging and supporting those who are saying the right things - because you can't accidentally do the right thing without saying it first.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2006 06:58 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
[URL=http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=12008]I have a problem with the logic here. If Layton voted in favour of Bill C-288, is he not implicitly supporting the short-term 6% by 2012 target laid out in Kyoto? How does introducing a bill that goes beyond 2012 nullify this support?

If Layton forces the issue of c-288, as a confidence motion, then yes there is not much of
a problem, though why Kyoto shouldn't be mentioned in the other legislation is still odd if Layton's support is firm.

It indicates that he will let c-288 die.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 November 2006 06:58 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

The Layton bills leap-frogs the 2012 commitment for a tougher commitment in 2020. My guess is Layton is anticipating the next target levels for Kyoto. I would call it shrewd. There is no point getting twisted in knots trying to reach consensus on a deadline that can't be met anyway and that the both the Liberal and the Cons would get hysterical over.

One other comment. The Liberals would not "get hysterical" over reiterating the Kyoto deadline - not while in opposition anyway. The Liberals are the ones that tabled Bill C-288! Enforcement of Kyoto would necessarily be supported by three parties, who together hold the balance of power. A shrewd move would surely be to put forward a proposal which none of those three could oppose!

Just sayin'.


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

posted 06 November 2006 07:02 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It indicates that he will let c-288 die.

Cueball, although I openly and immediately expressed my concerns about Layton's strategy - and continue to do so - I think it's wrong to condemn him in advance for something he hasn't done. He says (although not in his bill) that he supports Kyoto, and he is on record supporting C-288. So why don't we just ensure that as many people as possible are encouraging him to keep doing the right thing?

Sort of like on Afghanistan...

Plenty of time to call him names if and when he earns it!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2006 07:05 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What are you taling about? I have't mentioned his moustache once.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 06 November 2006 07:17 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

If Layton forces the issue of c-288, as a confidence motion, then yes there is not much of
a problem, though why Kyoto shouldn't be mentioned in the other legislation is still odd if Layton's support is firm.

It indicates that he will let c-288 die.


No it doesn't. That's just projection.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2006 07:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no reasonable explanation for the absence of Kyoto from Layton's own bill. Others here were quite upfront and positive about it being taken out specifically because it would become a roadblock. If Layton as you say, percieved that his legislation would not only meet but also exceed Kyoto there seems to be no logical reason not to mention it.

The bottom line is that if there is not bill passed in the legislature that does not specifically ratify Kyoto in Canadian law, we have not actually ratified Kyoto except in the executive sense.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 November 2006 08:01 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada ratified Kyoto in 2002. It's legally binding. We are obliged to reduce our GHG emissions to 6% below the 1990 level sometime between 2008-12. Even deeper cuts are needed after that. What's needed now is an actual plan from our weak colonial administrators in Ottawa and the provinces to detail a plan for actually achieving those reductions.

I'm speculating that where the friction lies in coming to all-party agreement is the fact that most of our GHG emissions come from old primary and secondary industries across Canada, a country still dependent on old industries for driving our old world hewer of wood and drawer of water economy. Meeting our Kyoto obligations will mean job losses and even curtailing our massive energy exports to that giant terraWatt light bulb south of us. And we know approximately where our two old line stoogocratic parties stand on issues where inconveniencing Uncle Sam and corporate America are concerned.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2006 08:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are basicly arguing the Liberal defence of their decision to go into Afghanistan, without parlimentary approval, but from the other side. It is amazing how one arguement is percieved as being the hieght of perfidy and immorality when espoused by the party one oppose, but then suddently becomes a bed rock principle of democracy, when defending ones own.

So what is actually needed is parlimentary approval for the implimentation of the Kyoto accords in Canadian law.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 November 2006 08:31 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that's very reverse-Liberal of you to say so. The Liberals were basically riding in Uncle Sam's front shirt pocket when they volunteered Canadians for Afghanistan, a geopolitical hot spot on the other side of the planet. I think more countries are agreeable that something has to be done about global warming. Not so with military intervention in Afghanistan, and our weak and ineffective Liberal government was sucked into that quagmire by Warshington, although they would rather say it's a NATO commitment. Our two old line parties are capable of thinking globally when given cues from our imperial masters in Warshington.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2006 08:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look either you believe that Canada needs to have parliment ratify the major policy decisions made through its international treaties, or not.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDPundit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3847

posted 06 November 2006 10:26 AM      Profile for NDPundit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting thread. Full of divergent speculation on what Jack's new bill is about and what it says about the party's stance on Kyoto.

Gleaned from comments already made above, here's my shot.

Jack's Bill does not mention Kyoto because:
1) Canada is a signatory to Kyoto and Jack is so committed to Kyoto that he takes for granted that a 6% percent reduction is Canada's short-term target (this explains NDP support for Rodriguez bill). What is missing are meidum and long-term targets which are being discussed now in Kenya.
2) Including a 2008-12 Kyoto target, in addition to being redundant given international commitment, would have caused Liberals to decry the move as a political game to sideswipe their precious C-288. Now, 3 parties can support C-288 and hopefully the same 3 parties will support Layton's bill and we'll all have a nice one-two punch on the Conservatives.

Also, the report (and analysis of science-base for targets) on which Jack's bill appears to be based deep reductions study takes the Kyoto target for granted as it lays out 2020 and 2050 targets.

This leads me to believe that Layton's bill was anything but an abandonment of Kyoto. Rather, the NDP after supporting C-288 (which is futher along - Second Reading, I think) is likely now looking for a quid pro quo from the Liberals in support for the complementary post-2012 targets. A better debate than "does Layton support Kyoto?" would be - "will the Liberals support Layton's post-Kyoto targets?"


From: Green and Pleasant Land | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 November 2006 10:26 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Well, I totally disagree with you. That is fatalism of the first order, and pardon me for saying so, it's exactly what Harper and Ambrose have said.

Not at all. Harper and Ambrose have purposely misrepresented Kyoto and the obligations. They would never have made an effort to meet the obligations even if they had a decade as they are ideologically opposed to saving the planet.

quote:

Jack Layton has not said it is too late to meet our Kyoto obligations on time. It's the Liberals who are accusing him of harbouring that belief (pretty laughable, given who it's coming from!!).


Yes, he has. By ommission.

Since signing Kyoto, Canada's emissions have climbed by what? 29%? Higher? Let's say 25% for a nice round number. That means Canada would have to cut emissions by 30% within the 5 years. You don't think the Liberals would howl? Who has been subsidizing the oil industry for the last 10 years? Harper has only been in government less than a year.

Is it possible to cut emission 30% in five years? Sure. But neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will demand their corporate sponsors go that far that fast.

"The greatest contributions in 2001 were from the electricity and petroleum industries, which accounted for 38% for total national emissions, followed by the transportation sector with 25%, according to CGGI. Overall, the energy sector (including stationary and transportation combustion sources and energy used during the extraction of fossil fuels) accounted for over 80% of Canada’s total GHG emissions in 2001. Of the provinces, Alberta accounted for 31.2% of total GHG emissions, followed by Ontario (27.9%) and Quebec (12.5%)."

"Canada's 2001 per capita energy consumption, 402.6 million Btu per person, was the highest in North America, above the U.S. level of 341.8 million Btu per person. Relative to other OECD countries, Canada's per capita energy consumption is considerably higher than France's (177.8 million Btu per person), the United Kingdom's (164.8 ), Germany's (174.3), Japan's (172.2), and Italy's (140.0)."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canenv.html

To reduce Canada's emissions we are talking about behavioral as well as economic changes. It will be a tough sell to a people who believe they are entitled to drive Hummers.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


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

posted 06 November 2006 10:38 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh great.

NDPundit says Layton omitted Kyoto because he "is so committed to Kyoto that he takes for granted that a 6% percent reduction is Canada's short-term target".

Frustrated Mess, however, says that by omitting Kyoto, Layton is saying that "it is too late to meet our Kyoto obligations on time".

Yet both seem to be defending his initiative?!

I'm on a third path. I believe Layton when he says he is still committed to Kyoto (although I wish he said it more clearly). I will wait and see, however, to see what that means.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 November 2006 10:48 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what was the point you were trying to make about our 29 NDP MP's and Kyoto ?. I think the NDP is pushing our two old line parties as much as possible toward real leadership and executive decison-making on Kyoto, something those two parties and their stoogocrats aren't used to doing. I think it's our two old line plutocratic parties that have been operating at glaaaaccccial speed on Kyoto while performing quite swiftly when it comes to backing up U.S. shadow governmental agendas in places like Afghanistan and Haiti, two countries that will have no problems meeting Kyoto emissions targets.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 November 2006 10:51 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then perhaps you will tell me how Canada would cut emissions 30% within 5 years that would be acceptable to a majority in parliament, their corporate backers, and their energy sucking constituents?

The reason I support the Layton initiative is because it is geared to putting us back on track. I completely disagree with Cueball. Canada has ratified Kyoto and we have not broken any treaty as of yet. At least not to my knowledge. I do not think it is a requirement to mouth Kyoto ofr every piece of enabling legislation.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 November 2006 11:11 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Then perhaps you will tell me how Canada would cut emissions 30% within 5 years that would be acceptable to a majority in parliament, their corporate backers, and their energy sucking constituents?.

Considering that Canada is the largest exporter of energy and raw materials to the U.S., I think it will be very difficult to convince our two old line parties to make drastic changes affecting their "constituencies." How easy will it be for maritime provinces and Alberta to say to the Yanks, No, we can't build anymore coal-fired power plants so that you can be greener." And how about a green tax on our oil sands exports ?. Maurice Strong said in 2001 that Canada is in a unique position to help America reduce its voracious appetite for Canadian energy. I think our two old line parties will need major hormone replacement and spinal transplants if Canada is to meet Kyoto obligations. It will mean accepting political fallout for job losses unless the feds and provinces are committed to transforming our economy from old world to knowledge based high technologies. And I just don't think our two old line parties are capable of deviating much from their Washington centric roles as colonial administrators in Ottawa and Queen's Parks. Canada is a ship without a rudder and has been for a long time. Jack is one of several true leaders this country has never had before, and 29 NDP MP's are worth 227 of theirs anyday. The old line parties are just biding their time before polls suggest they might ditch the NDP and get on with their colonial administrative duties uncontested.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

The reason I support the Layton initiative is because it is geared to putting us back on track. I completely disagree with Cueball. Canada has ratified Kyoto and we have not broken any treaty as of yet. At least not to my knowledge. I do not think it is a requirement to mouth Kyoto ofr every piece of enabling legislation.

Well it won't be the first time someone has disagreed with Cueball on Rabble.

That said, and not speaking about you in particular, I really don't see why people are so upset with the stand that I and others are pushing. It isn't a completely spurious and unwarranted attack based on partisan anti-NDP bias, but a serious issue of policy and how it is conducted, both here and internationally.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 November 2006 11:36 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What stand and in which direction ?. Too vague.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2006 11:39 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You should know by now that I am not a fan of loyalty tests, yours or theres.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 November 2006 11:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
What stand and in which direction ?

A stand doesn't have a direction. You must be thinking of a walk.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 November 2006 11:55 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So as far as you're concerned, the NDP is really another bought and paid for colonial administrative party trying to push a luke warm Kyoto resolve for the sake of electability. And I say that's the job of our two old line parties. Why should multinationals and banking elite have to prop up more than two colonial administrative parties when two will do ?. Corporationists and financial elite have 227 stoogocrats at their beck and call and who completely understand why they are there in Ottawa. They don't need or want the NDP to be their muscle, because those colonial administrative slots are filled already.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 November 2006 12:07 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

A stand doesn't have a direction. You must be thinking of a walk.


He mentioned something about a stand which he and others here are pushing. I'm just trying to figure whether it really is a stand or an adjustable tree stand like the kind hunters use as a vantage point for picking off deer.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 November 2006 12:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not at all. Layton walks right up to you and let you shoot him in the head. It is quite amazing actually.

Now, a less sanguine and trusting deer would hide a bit in the trees and do things like include Kyoto in his draft, and then get the hunter Harper to force him to take it out. Because you he didn't the Liberals bagged one.

I had nothing to do with it.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 November 2006 12:36 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Not at all. Layton walks right up to you and let you shoot him in the head. It is quite amazing actually.

Your contempt for the NDP in several vague posts is duly noted.

quote:
Now, a less sanguine and trusting deer would hide a bit in the trees and do things like include Kyoto in his draft, and then get the hunter Harper to force him to take it out. Because you he didn't the Liberals bagged one.

You must be thinking about Alberta Mule deer. Mule Deer from Alberta are about as shrewd and cunning as a bag of hammers. I don't think corporate lobbyists out that way even bother with adjustable tree stands.

Jack and the 29 NDP MP's are the swift and clever white tail deer from central Canada. There will be no easy roadside kills with even 29 NDP'ers in sn'Ottawa.

Meanwhile, Liberal poodles, like Ralph "Mr Trust Fund Insider" Goodale, should run with the NDP instead of staring down Elmer Fudd's corporate rifle barrel. I think they should declare the NDP the official opposition for lack of vital signs in the Liberal Party Inc.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868

posted 06 November 2006 01:59 PM      Profile for melovesproles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now, a less sanguine and trusting deer would hide a bit in the trees and do things like include Kyoto in his draft, and then get the hunter Harper to force him to take it out. Because you he didn't the Liberals bagged one.

I think it would have been more damaging for the NDP to include Kyoto and then drop it to please Harper. Then the Liberals would actually have some support for their attack. I expect the NDP to support the Liberal Kyoto bill and all the noises they are making in the press suggest they will, this bill just lets the NDP continue their "making politics work" or whatever meme. If they find themselves up against Rae it will be good to have "pragmatic" examples like forcing the Cons to speed up their plan to innoculate themselves from the charge that they are ineffective whiners unlike Rae who managed to accomplish so much in his time as Premier like the destruction of the party he was leading in Ontario for a couple of elections.

Anyways, I'd be very surprised and disappointed if the NDP abandons Kyoto and even the media seems to be ignoring that charge:

quote:
"Canada's reputation is very seriously damaged given that Mr. Harper is taking the view that Canada's signature on an important international agreement can simply be nullified by a wave of his hand," Mr. Layton said.

Mr. Layton met with Mr. Harper in his office last week on environmental issues. Following the meeting, the Conservatives agreed to allow the Clean Air Act to go to a Commons committee for changes without a vote. Mr. Layton said there was no deal between the NDP and the Conservatives as to what would happen to the bill once it arrives in committee.

"We believe strong action around Kyoto should be there in that Act. There was nothing content-wise agreed to at all," he said.

The NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois all insist that it is still possible for Canada to meet its Kyoto targets, which call for greenhouse gas emissions to average 6 per cent below 1990 levels in the years 2008 to 2012.

The Conservatives argue that it is too late to follow Kyoto because emissions actually rose to about 27 per cent above 1990 levels under the Liberals, and that the climate-change focus should take a longer-term approach.

The conflicting views are heading toward a major conflict in the coming weeks, as both sides battle over amendments to the Clean Air Act. Meanwhile, a Liberal private member's bill calling for Kyoto's targets to be met is quickly working its way through the Commons and will be out of committee before Dec. 7.


Being in Kyoto and having a worse track record than the US is the worst case scenario as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see us stick with it but actually walk the walk and not just come off like popmpous hypocrites. The NDP seems to be working towards that unlike the Liberals who have publicly embarassed us on this issue.


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 07 November 2006 04:34 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Not at all. Layton walks right up to you and let you shoot him in the head. It is quite amazing actually.

Now, a less sanguine and trusting deer would hide a bit in the trees and do things like include Kyoto in his draft, and then get the hunter Harper to force him to take it out. Because you he didn't the Liberals bagged one.

I had nothing to do with it.


Because you are imagining intentions which never existed? Neat trick.

Once again: Kyoto has no targets beyond the 2008-2012 period. Why should legislation which concerns the years beyond 2012 include reference to a document which doesn't have targets beyond that year? It might help if you assume no evil intent in the author of said document when answering this quetion.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 November 2006 08:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca