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


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Ernie says No to Kyoto

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ernie says No to Kyoto
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 02 October 2002 01:48 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Read it and weep.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 02 October 2002 05:05 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
''I'm not signing on to anything that I don't know the effect of at the end of the day,'' Eves said.

''So it is incumbent upon the federal government to explain to every premier across the country what is [Jean Chrétien's] plan; how is he going to achieve whatever target it is he wants to achieve; and how is he going to do that without costing any part of the economy hundreds of thousands of jobs or tens of thousands of jobs for that matter,'' he said.


Too bad he wasn't Premier during the NAFTA negotiations.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 02 October 2002 05:44 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why, how many jobs do you figure NAFTA cost us? Feel free to state in negative numbers.

Considering Canada is still outperforming the entire G7. Aww doggonit, now your making me sound like Manley.

Why would you say read it and weep? Why not wait to see what type of action plan the liberals come up with in 3 weeks? Its not like 3 weeks is that big of a deal, as we've already squandered, like 7 years since Kyoto was announced without making any effort at all. BTW the Federal government can take years for their action plan, but its no excuse for not taking action right now and supplying funding for co-generation or nuclear power plants, and funding for alternative fuels. We don't need Kyoto or an action plan to know that all of those things are necessary to make any headway on CO2 emissions.

I assert those who support signing Kyoto do so for one of two reasons

#1. They want to use it as an excuse for not actually taking action but looking good because we signed an agreement.

Or more nefariously
#2. They want to trick us into signing a deal that the public would not support when they realize the repercussions and then try to force the public into honouring something they fundamentally don't support. With the alternative being fines paid to poorer countries which is just fine with them anyways.

I'm for taking action on reducing Greenhouse emissions. That stance however has been shown to be completely unrelated to the signing of the Kyoto accord.

Take the money that we'll pay in fines for not meeting Kyoto and build another cogeneration plant, or use it to help finance a natural gas pipeline. That I'll support.

By the way, Question:
if we meet Kyoto based on changing the limits unilaterally (Impossible in itself but hypothetically), but the rest of the world does not recognize those changed parameters. Do we still owe the fines??? what action can the rest of the world take against us???


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 02 October 2002 06:07 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nyuk, nyuk:

quote:
I'm confused. In the 1980s, it was all so clear and simple. Opponents of the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement said free trade would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. They accused supporters of the deal -- Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney topped the list -- of selling out Canadian sovereignty.

No opposition was fiercer than the Official one. Indeed, the Opposition Liberals under John Turner ran an entire election campaign to scupper the deal. And they nearly won. Some free-trade opponents said they preferred a "made in Canada" industrial strategy. Others said the multilateral GATT was the way to achieve liberalization -- until it begat the WTO, that much-vilified icon of globalization and all its ills.

Pshaw, said Albertans to all of this, and most of the business elite chimed in.


Spin that logic, crank that view


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 02 October 2002 06:12 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A U.S. energy expert says Canada's oilpatch is fighting "last year's war" in its battle to stop the Kyoto accord and the trading of emissions credits.

Emission trading fight won: expert


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 02 October 2002 08:18 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Speaking of introverts and inaction, here's a bunch of questions for you Ontarioians (and anyone else with an opinion):

First of all, I was listening to As It Happens this evening, which spurred my brain into action. Mary Lou was talking to some fellar about California's emmission laws. California, as we all know, has the strictest emmission standards in North America, because they've had smog problems since the 60's. The state is moving forward with zero-emission standards (and predictably being sued over it by auto manufacturers). Ontario had it's worst year ever this year for smog alerts, and not just in the GTA. The interviewee implied that Ontario can't adopt emmission standards as tough as California's because the economy is too dependant on auto manufacturing. But isn't the opposite true?

Can't Ontario use it's close ties to the auto industry to foster discussion on technology development and (more importantly) mass production of cleaner vehicles? Use tax credits to reward manufacturers who adopt new, cleaner, technology, so long as they base the manufacture in Ontario? Put the tax credits on a sliding scale, so that the faster a company jumps to adopt a newer tech, the sweeter the credit? Would this not promote more investment by the auto industry in Ontario, and the adoption of cleaner technology at the same time?

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 October 2002 09:41 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Too easy! They'd never go for it.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 02 October 2002 09:52 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I doubt it. The problem is that, I believe, over half of Ontario's auto production is exported down south. As a manufacturer, if Ontario made more stringent standards, I might simply not produce for the Ontario market, plain and simple.

The reason why California can move an entire industry is that California has such a huge market. California has more cars in the state than all of Canada does combined. I'm not sure of sales figures, but I'd extrapolate this to mean that California probably has more new car sales than all of Canada as well.

That is why if California says jump, the auto industry asks, how high?

Sure, Ontario can try to use credits to spur development, but if the export markets don't need cleaner auto standards, you won't find many takers.

That's my analysis, anyway.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 October 2002 10:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Like it or not cleaner cars are the future. Ontario can either lead in the development of cleaner technology and benefit from being a leader or Ontario can follow and pay the licensing costs of the new technology as well as forgo all the inherent benefits of being an innovator.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 02 October 2002 11:48 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ontario is a large market for autos. Of course, California is a hhhuuuuuuggeeeee market for autos. But California has no manufacturing base. Ontario (and Michigan and a few other states) have unique positions as auto manufacturing centres to design laws which will benefit manufacturers, consumers, and slow down environmental damage. Of course, I'm a crazy leftie, what do I know?
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 03 October 2002 03:34 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But, well, apparently the new auto manufacturing center is in, of all places, the American Deep South. Alabama, Tennessee, whatever. Do you think they will shackle the industry? I'm not trying to argue my position is better, or right, or whatnot. But the design decisions are not made with the manufacturing base in mind. Hell, just as quick as the auto industry moves to the non-union deep south, it can just as easily now move to Mexico. Changes in manufacturing only will occur in the legislative front of the car manufactures big markets.

You might get manufactures to change emissions standards, whatnot, if all of Canada clamped down, but then you need federal legislation (or simultaneous provincial legislation) … and, well, if you've been following anything about Kyoto, you know what a pipe dream that is.


I'm all for better emissions. But saying, hey, manufactures in Ont, you're goanna make cars to fit this standard, well, then the industry will just move to somewhere that doesn't restrict production based on where the cars are made.

This is the age of free trade, NAFTA, etc. Where a product is manufactured means nothing. It's the dynamics of the target market that actually influence how a product gets produced.

I'm not arguing that this is right. I'm just saying this is what currently exists. U.S. policy will have more of an effect on the local industry than the CDN government ever will.

That is how I understand it, and not how I'd like to see it.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 03 October 2002 09:16 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's why I'm talking about tax credits which reward companies for jumping ahead in the technology queue. Penalties won't work...the companies and the unions would raise too big a stink.

Any change would have to be provincially driven. The federal government would have their hands tied, what with Alberta whining about how much the rest of Canada hates them, and by the Atlantic Provinces complaining that they're crippling a growing industry.

Small markets which produce goods can have an effect, ya know. As an example, Norway is a small market with big oil reserves (not so big as Alberta, the Gulf of Mexico, or the Middle East, but big). They've laid down rules for oil producers saying that producers must stop flaring oil and gas in Norweigan waters by 2005 and 2008, respectively, or get the hell out of Norway. Flaring is done during the testing of new wells...gas or oil is burned off as quickly as it flows into the well, to test the deliverability of new resources. We are talking large amounts of hydrocarbons burning for days at a time.

Despite the limits on flaring, companies are not fleeing Norway; they are developing techniques to test the wells without emissions. These techniques will end up saving money and resources in the long run. The technology being developed for Norway is being exported to other areas around the world, because it saves money and resources. One small country set the standard; now the standard is benefitting the globe. This is similar to the positive effect California's emmissions standards have had on the relative cleanliness of cars across North America.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 October 2002 10:03 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly.
As well, canada may not be as large a market as California, but it is still a lucrative market. If we say automobiles sold here must meet certain criteria, that criteria will be met. There might be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but it will happen. Consider that every manufacturer and producer who supplies Canada does so in both official languages. There must be an additional cost there but profit is profit. And, lets be completely fair here, any increase in manufacturing cost is passed on to the buyer. Will more fuel efficient vehicles mean higher prices? Sure. At first. But then they will drop as does any new technology.

The entire issue, in my humble opinion, is neither cost nor jobs nor any other economic issue. The entire issue is that the so-called drivers of innovation, industry, hates change unless it is the type of change that immediatley boosts the bottom line. So they like robots that replace people. They like computers that replace people. They like any fast imbecile in a suit that will tell them if they just adopt these "new" business principles they will experience larger profits. But any change that involves even s short term higher cost and does not deliver them something for nothing, they get all excited and doomsaying about.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 October 2002 10:29 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think that its business that is the resistor, its the fact that they realize that consumers will not pay for those changes.

Business is just delivering a message that People will not pay higher prices for this new environmentally friendly products. So your answer is to simply shoot the messenger.

When people do express a willingness to pay for environmentally friendly products business is the first to jump on the bandwagon. Thats why we see health sections blossoming at Zehrs. Thats why we see stickers starting to show up at gas stations showing sulphur content.

If the population demands more environmentally friendly products then business is happy to supply them. You just want to affect supply without doing the work to create the demand.

But the demand is growing, thankfully for all of us. Low sulphur gas should help. Are you blaming business for that too? We should all take the blame for that, especially the public for not demanding more.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 October 2002 10:37 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can you produce your studies to demonstrate consumers will not pay more for fewer smog days, fewer respiratory illnesses, lower health care costs, cleaner air and a sustainable environment? I would be really interested in seeing your polling results.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 03 October 2002 10:46 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know who you are directing your comments towards, Markbo, but you are a little off. Business creates the demand for new products through massive (and expensive) marketing blitzes. The messanger is the supplier. The recent "failure" of the gas-electric car has more to do with a lack of marketing than a lack of demand (more accurately, a binge of marketing for SUVs and other guzzlers). Marketing creates the demand, or at least creates a form of consumer awareness. California is an extreme case, where demand for low-emmission vehicles was created because of completely intolerable smog levels in the cities.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 October 2002 11:22 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you produce your studies to demonstrate consumers will not pay more for fewer smog days, fewer respiratory illnesses, lower health care costs, cleaner air and a sustainable environment? I would be really interested in seeing your polling results.

The demonstration is better shown when consumers are willing to pay for environmental products, we see them fill up on shelves.

Also we could pay for for fewer smog days, fewer respiratory illnesses, lower health care costs, cleaner air and a sustainable environment through higher taxes to replace coal fired plants with cogeneration plants and a pipeline. Do you want me to do a poll on how many individuals would support higher taxes???? How about the polls which saw Harris elected and reelected. How about the poll in March which will see Ernie Eves reelected. Will that suffice???

quote:

I don't know who you are directing your comments towards, Markbo, but you are a little off. Business creates the demand for new products through massive (and expensive) marketing blitzes.

Business can exploit an existing demand or it can possibly create in the VERY short term (we're talking months) a demand but it can never create a sustainable demand for a product.

quote:
The messanger is the supplier. The recent "failure" of the gas-electric car has more to do with a lack of marketing than a lack of demand (more accurately, a binge of marketing for SUVs and other guzzlers).

Not with the fact that it was an inferior product?? Not with the fact that its slower, can't recharge etcetera. Do you have an gas-electric car? why not?

quote:

Marketing creates the demand, or at least creates a form of consumer awareness. California is an extreme case, where demand for low-emmission vehicles was created because of completely intolerable smog levels in the cities.

Marketing exploits an existing demand, it doesn't create new ones. People look at the short term gratification and right now its bigger better stronger faster. They always have and they always will. In California they saw the short term effects of pollution. Here they haven't yet. When they do their demand will shift. It will have nothing to do with marketing. ALthough marketing will take advantage of that shift in demand when it happens.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 October 2002 11:39 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The demonstration is better shown when consumers are willing to pay for environmental products, we see them fill up on shelves.

Also we could pay for for fewer smog days, fewer respiratory illnesses, lower health care costs, cleaner air and a sustainable environment through higher taxes to replace coal fired plants with cogeneration plants and a pipeline. Do you want me to do a poll on how many individuals would support higher taxes???? How about the polls which saw Harris elected and reelected. How about the poll in March which will see Ernie Eves reelected. Will that suffice???



Consumers have indicated they are willing to pay more for a healtheir environment. The fact that manufacturers refuse to produce the products for mass consumption speaks only to the short sightedness of business. For example, the Honda hybrid is way too costly for the typical city driver even if it is desirable. I could not afford it and I would buy one. And for your information, a friend has a hybrid (gas/electric) pickup truck. he never has troubel with it and gets extraordinary mileage.

I will admit, Harris played to the lowest common denominator and won. If appealing to the mean and nasty elements of humanity is what gets you your jollys, well, it is your life. But if voters were to be presented with the long term costs of pollution and environmental degradation against the short term gains of their tax cuts (and they are not really gains as people are beginning to learn) I believe they would choose in their own best interests which would not be tax cuts.

It is interesting though, while you and industry tell us about the costs of Kyoto (without ever examing the costs of doing nothing) you never offer an alternative.

Where is the alternative plan?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 03 October 2002 11:46 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not with the fact that it was an inferior product?? Not with the fact that its slower, can't recharge etcetera. Do you have an gas-electric car? why not?

Price. Which is directly related to supply. Which is directly related to demand. Which is directly related to marketing buckaroos. Plus the fact that I walk everywhere, except once every two weeks (on average) when I borrow my brother's car or take a cab.

If marketing doesn't create demand, then there must be a lot of stupid CEOs out there (not a fact I will dispute, BTW) throwing good money after bad. Last I looked, many large North American companies spent at least as much on marketing as on R&D of new products (depending on sector, of course).


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 October 2002 07:26 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Consumers have indicated they are willing to pay more for a healtheir environment.

Oh yeah, then why do they keep voting for tax cuts when that directly affects government funding of environmental concerns.

quote:

The fact that manufacturers refuse to produce the products for mass consumption speaks only to the short sightedness of business.

They conducted the research and have proven that consumers will not buy an environmentally friendly product if it is inferior.

quote:

For example, the Honda hybrid is way too costly for the typical city driver even if it is desirable. I could not afford it and I would buy one.

This makes no sense, because the Honda hybrid is way too costly people are running out and buying the Biggest SUV they can get their hands on??

quote:
If appealing to the mean and nasty elements of humanity is what gets you your jollys, well, it is your life.

Its not mean and nasty to work hard and expect to provide more for your family.

quote:

But if voters were to be presented with the long term costs of pollution and environmental degradation against the short term gains of their tax cuts (and they are not really gains as people are beginning to learn) I believe they would choose in their own best interests which would not be tax cuts.

THey've proven time and time again that they won't. Only when the Long term costs become short term costs will they choose the gains of environmentally friendly products. But that time is soon coming, thankfully.

quote:
It is interesting though, while you and industry tell us about the costs of Kyoto (without ever examing the costs of doing nothing) you never offer an alternative.

Where is the alternative plan?


Easy, the federal government should make a deal transfering tax points to the provinces in return for insisting that they be used to shut down coal fired plants and build co generation plants or fund a new natural gas pipeline.

They should immediately spend all funds they are spending on Kyoto studies, research etc..on (albeit small) on tax credits for those who upgrade furnaces to energy efficient.

Tax credits should be given to any company that builds a co-generation plant.

Tax credits should also be given for upgrading scrubbers. The federal government should commit 2 billion each year on funding technology and an infrastructure for a network of hydrogen fuel stations for new fuel cell technology.

And you know what, none of that has anything to do with signing a worthless peice of paper called Kyoto. The above actions would impress me.

quote:
Price. Which is directly related to supply. Which is directly related to demand. Which is directly related to marketing buckaroos. Plus the fact that I walk everywhere, except once every two weeks (on average) when I borrow my brother's car or take a cab.

Fuel efficient cars are priced less than SUV's and gas guzzler cars. That doesn't seem to detract from their record sales now does it.

quote:

If marketing doesn't create demand, then there must be a lot of stupid CEOs out there (not a fact I will dispute, BTW) throwing good money after bad. Last I looked, many large North American companies spent at least as much on marketing as on R&D of new products (depending on sector, of course).

But marketing doesn't create demand, it exploits demand and explains to a consumer that the product will better satisfy their demand better than a competitors.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 03 October 2002 07:31 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh yeah, then why do they keep voting for tax cuts when that directly affects government funding of environmental concerns.

Because the cheap -- in the sense of lousy, but in several others too -- demagogues who style themselves our leaders know it's a sure-fire vote getter to appeal to people's short-term thinking, particularly if they're feeling insecure, short of income, etc. -- and particularly if previous actions by said cheap demagogues are partly responsible for this insecurity.

Dear boy, do pay attention, there's a good chap.

quote:
But marketing doesn't create demand, it exploits demand and explains to a consumer that the product will better satisfy their demand better than a competitors.

Oh, Markbo, Markbo, Markbo, my dear fellow... I see we'll have to start at the very beginning. Hasn't anyone explained to you that Santa Claus doesn't bring Christmas presents, and the stork doesn't bring babies?

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
GulfAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1259

posted 03 October 2002 10:47 PM      Profile for GulfAlien   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey check out this site to see how business has already been responding to the issue of global warming or more accurately, carbon dioxide emissions.

http://www.co2e.com

There were huge concerns about acid rain agreements many years ago, that when implemented and addressed, proved to be resolved in creative and profitable ways. The same for CFC's. Carbon dioxide emissions are greater than either of these in scale, but outcome will be the same.

As you will see from a cursory preview of co2e.com, it is already a big, and rapidly growing, industry that is organically but thoroughly developing. It spans from raw materials to insurance.

Mr Legacy is correct in signing the Kyoto accord, and in his confidence that Canada will not suffer from it. The people disagreeing are simply not listening to all sides of the argument or are simply positioning themselves as in negotiation.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 04 October 2002 12:58 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because the cheap -- in the sense of lousy, but in several others too -- demagogues who style themselves our leaders know it's a sure-fire vote getter to appeal to people's short-term thinking, particularly if they're feeling insecure, short of income, etc. -- and particularly if previous actions by said cheap demagogues are partly responsible for this insecurity.

Dear boy, do pay attention, there's a good chap.


Your contradicting Wingnut and the argument on this thread. You agree people are willing to pay more for their health, but you also recognize people only think in terms of short term gratification. You can't have it both ways. THe majority of people only think in short term respects. This is an ultimate truth, the trick is convincing them that a better environment will yeild them short term benefits. Emphasizing those short term benefits. Thats where marketing could possibly help. But marketing will not create the fact that people demand short term benefits. It will only explain to them what the short term benefits of a healthy environment are.

Example. If you don't buy a gas guzzling SUV your payments could buy you a hot tub or swimming pool.

quote:
Oh, Markbo, Markbo, Markbo, my dear fellow... I see we'll have to start at the very beginning. Hasn't anyone explained to you that Santa Claus doesn't bring Christmas presents, and the stork doesn't bring babies?

It seems like those here are the ones guilty of fantasies not I. Marketing exploits demands that exist already.

quote:
Mr Legacy is correct in signing the Kyoto accord, and in his confidence that Canada will not suffer from it. The people disagreeing are simply not listening to all sides of the argument or are simply positioning themselves as in negotiation.

The only reason that Canada will not suffer from it is that there are no plans to actually honour it. I am disagreeing with signing Kyoto and I am listening to all sides, my proof being my very presence here. I am not negotiating because I have nothing to gain and just as much to lose from a poor environment as anybody here. As a sufferer of asthma probably even a bit more.

I am for shutting down coal fired plants, for the federal government transfering tax points to Ontario on the condition it will be used for that purpose.

I am for federal money being spent providing an infrastructure of hydrogen fuel stations to power fuel cell cars if the trials in California are shown to be viable (Were talking months here not years)

I am for taking this money from the HRDC programs as well as 2 billion per year of new spending per year. Federal money can be spent on new natural gas lines or hydrogen gas stations but any other money should be transferred to the provinces as its under their jurisdiction.

These actions can happen immediately, they have nothing to do with the worthless paper we call Kyoto.

Its funny although I disagree with everybody on these threads I have used it to fine tune my position. I think its far more responsible than anybody's here

Thats the surplus; 2 billion on health care, 2 billion on environment and 2 billion on infrastructure (municipalities).
I believe 1 billion of the above money for environment and infrastructure should be diverted from HRDC budget leaving 1 billion to pay down debt.

Hows that for an alternative budget. You should elect me supreme dictator.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 04 October 2002 01:09 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your contradicting Wingnut and the argument on this thread. You agree people are willing to pay more for their health, but you also recognize people only think in terms of short term gratification.

My dear fellow. We'll never get anywhere unless you read what I actually say -- which means, I fear, that we'll never get anywhere. What I actually said was:

quote:
the cheap ... demagogues who style themselves our leaders know it's a sure-fire vote getter to appeal to people's short-term thinking ...

not

quote:
people only think in terms of short term gratification.

If the difference is lost on you, I have no intention of explaining it to you.

And even if I contradict WingNut -- which I deny -- where's the harm in that? I could contradict WingNut even if I were WingNut, which I regret to say I'm not. Or WingNut could contradict me, or I could contradict myself. We are large, WingNut and I; we contain multitudes.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 04 October 2002 01:14 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Relax, we don't disagree here, its human nature to think in the short term.

Most peoples problems stem from doing that, over eating, over drinking, over indulging in every sense.

Yes I understand that we are not limited to thinking in the short term but what I'm saying is important for activists on Rabble

You'll have more success stressing the short term benefits of helping the environment then trying to convince people to think in the long term.

The only reason California is a leader is that they had the short term repercussions thrust in their face. Smog hit them hard and they saw short term results in cleaning it up. We have to do the same thing. Stress short term costs and short term benefits without making them up.

As much as you might not think so, I'm trying to give a constructive criticism here.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca