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   » House Motion Passes supporting Kyoto

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: House Motion Passes supporting Kyoto
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 05 February 2007 07:00 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, well. The latest in the new green discourse of our state leaders.

Check it out on CBC

It seems like this might be a critical moment in this country to really do something about climate change. The politicians have their fingers in the wind.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 February 2007 07:39 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The motion takes an indirect swipe at the Clean Air Act, saying the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), already on the books, is available immediately to launch the necessary action.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 February 2007 08:05 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bravo, Jack:

quote:
"My hope is that what we'll be able to achieve at the end of the day is a recognition that these Kyoto obligations are ones that we have to honour," said Layton.

That's what we all wanted to hear!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lonewolf2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10589

posted 05 February 2007 08:21 PM      Profile for lonewolf2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, goodee goodee...

Parliament politicians have declared a war on global warming, so we are all done now and no worries.

Of course, have we won:

*War on Child Poverty
*War on Cancer
*War on Crime
*War on Drugs

.... hang on tight, things are gonna get much worse before it gets better.

PS Change "at the end of the day" to " at the end of civilization" in the last post and I'd beliee it.

[ 05 February 2007: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 February 2007 08:46 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mansbridge reminded us there's a vote later on to force the govt. to comply with Kyoto, and it should pass easily. I was happy to see CEPA was included in the motion that was passed tonight.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 05 February 2007 08:50 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I found it a little odd that Harper didn't even show up in the house to vote.

Is that a pouty "I don't give a damn about this" or a defiant pose?


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

posted 05 February 2007 08:54 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
I found it a little odd that Harper didn't even show up in the house to vote.

Is that a pouty "I don't give a damn about this" or a defiant pose?



I think he was scared shitless at the prospect of his voting against Kyoto going on the public record. I'm surprised any Cons showed up to vote, frankly. This makes them look very bad.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 February 2007 09:06 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good stuff wtg Jack and Nathan, makes me feel marginally better on this action. Glad to see Jack spoke strongly.

quote:
"My hope is that what we'll be able to achieve at the end of the day is a recognition that these Kyoto obligations are ones that we have to honour," said Layton.

The Clean Air Act contains no reference to Kyoto, and it would be difficult for the Tories to accept the Kyoto targets now, having ridiculed them so often.

NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen made it clear the party's support for the Liberal bill was not the result of affection for the Liberals or Dion. "Unfortunately, the mover Mr. Dion has very little credibility on climate change. He was unable to deliver as environment minister and now he's trying from the opposition benches."


ETA: Forgot to say Harper's not showing up, is pouting and most likely he decided not to justify the action with his presence even.
Plus, he vote would have meant nothing, they still lost. And this way he gets to tell himself he is not a loser.

Telling that he is now on official record for NOT supporting the environment and playing partisian games with it. What a piss poor example he is.

Also, there was a point in the Canoe article that I did not get could someone clarify it for me?

quote:
The fact that the NDP and Bloc Quebecois supported the Liberal motion could spell trouble for the government down the road.

That's because the Liberals have introduced a bill with similar wording that would be binding if passed.


How would another bill make it binding?

[ 05 February 2007: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 05 February 2007 09:18 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I'm surprised any Cons showed up to vote, frankly. This makes them look very bad.

I'm sure they were told what to do. It is an accountable government after all.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Van resident
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7892

posted 05 February 2007 11:30 PM      Profile for Van resident     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
How would another bill make it binding?

This was an Opposition Day Motion. Motions are not binding, they are a stunt.

The Liberal Private Member's Bill C-288 creates an actual law, if it is not ruled out of order due to restrictions on PMBs, no spending can be ordered.

It is in report debate stage so it will be a while before it could be passed both the House and Senate. It orders the Minister to table a "Plan" in 60 days. http://tinyurl.com/2f2o2r

The Clean Air Act will have passed first and make C-288 pointless and very shortly after that there will be an election which will kill the PMB.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 February 2007 11:52 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Pringle:
The Liberal Private Member's Bill C-288 creates an actual law, if it is not ruled out of order due to restrictions on PMBs, no spending can be ordered.

It is in report debate stage so it will be a while before it could be passed both the House and Senate. It orders the Minister to table a "Plan" in 60 days.

The Clean Air Act will have passed first and make C-288 pointless and very shortly after that there will be an election which will kill the PMB.


I doubt that the Clean Air Act will be passed before quite frankly.

But thank you for the insight.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 06 February 2007 07:51 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So, we have three parties, the majority of the house, and about 70% of Canadian voters onside with the parties committing to Kyoto (yes, I know the Liberal record, but they are on paper).

What Jack should do now is announce that any party who supports Kyoto needs to grind parliament to a halt unless the Conservatives pass a bill that actually does something.

The Conservatives did this in the last (and in some cases this) parliament, and have committed to 'climate change action' so they can't complain about this.

Dion has recommitted to Kyoto and has stated he wants action now. Same with Duceppe.

I know it would fail, but at least it would expose the hypocracy of the Liberals (as I think the Bloc might be on board with the idea).


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 07 February 2007 05:29 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
...and about 70% of Canadian voters onside with the parties committing to Kyoto

That would explain the increase in SUV sales and the drop in economy cars.

Very few Canadians are willing to quit their resource wasting ways. I give it about twenty years. It took that long to change peoples behaviour relating to drunk driving, smoking, etc. I don't see how this is any different.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 07 February 2007 10:24 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Economic incentives are the best mechanism to promote a change in consumption habits. That and labelling products. (ie EnerGuide, organic food/GMO labelling, that Carbon labelling program going on in that British supermarket)
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
oreobw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13754

posted 07 February 2007 11:02 AM      Profile for oreobw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This sounds like a good time to mention my favourite incentive, a carbon tax (and then wait for the bricks to come my way).

In addition to other policies directed at industry (e.g. emission limits, closing down coal fired power plants), a carbon tax would be consumer related and hit natural gas, heading oil, electricity and gasoline. It should start low and be gradually increased, e.g. say 5% with additional 5% added each for 10 years or so.

This should should motivate people to change their habits over time as increasing costs would be obvious.

Any comments?

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 07 February 2007 12:32 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That would explain the increase in SUV sales and the drop in economy cars.

The Honda Civic set new sales records in 2006 and continues to be the highest selling passenger vehicle in Canada.

A Carbon Tax might be useful if it could be designed to be progressive, but eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas and coal industries is more a more important component of ecological fiscal reform. Also stringent CAFE standards and especially pay as you drive auto insurance.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 February 2007 12:35 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... blah, blah, fritter at the edges, blah, blah, do nothing really, blah, blah ...

BAN THEM!


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 07 February 2007 01:22 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, yeah. Of course you have to elimate perverse subsidies at the same time.
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
StockwellDay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10342

posted 07 February 2007 01:24 PM      Profile for StockwellDay     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Economic incentives are the best mechanism to promote a change in consumption habits. That and labelling products. (ie EnerGuide, organic food/GMO labelling, that Carbon labelling program going on in that British supermarket)

I think economic incentives are one way to approach the problem, but not the best way. And if they're the only way, we'll fail the environment. Legislation, legislation, legislation. Industry will kick and scream, but their products will get better sooner then waiting for the invisible hand of the market.


From: the right coast | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
oreobw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13754

posted 07 February 2007 01:25 PM      Profile for oreobw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
... blah, blah, fritter at the edges, blah, blah, do nothing really, blah, blah ...

BAN THEM!


Ban what, cars?

Also, "but eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas and coal industries is more a more important component of ecological fiscal reform. Also stringent CAFE standards and especially pay as you drive auto insurance. "

Note I was pushing a carbon tax in addition to other measures such as the ones you mentioned.

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 07 February 2007 01:31 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
... blah, blah, fritter at the edges, blah, blah, do nothing really, blah, blah ...

BAN THEM!


Ban nothing. Tax the frikkin' hell out of them, and use the money to subsidize public transit.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 07 February 2007 01:34 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by oreobw:
e.g. emission limits, closing down coal fired power plants

If you are interested in shutting down coal, then I hope you have (or plan to) switched to
Bullfrog Power. Your hydro related emissions would drop from several tons to zero.

[ 07 February 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 07 February 2007 01:37 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by StockwellDay:

I think economic incentives are one way to approach the problem, but not the best way. And if they're the only way, we'll fail the environment. Legislation, legislation, legislation. Industry will kick and scream, but their products will get better sooner then waiting for the invisible hand of the market.


With economic incentives the market's hand will be very visible.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Shane in Aldergrove
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5473

posted 08 February 2007 08:21 AM      Profile for Shane in Aldergrove     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Where can I find how the MPS voted on this bill?
From: the buckle of the bible belt | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 08 February 2007 08:45 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shane in Aldergrove:
Where can I find how the MPS voted on this bill?

It was a motion, not a bill. Click here.


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

posted 08 February 2007 04:29 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:

Very few Canadians are willing to quit their resource wasting ways. I give it about twenty years. It took that long to change peoples behaviour relating to drunk driving, smoking, etc. I don't see how this is any different.

Sadly, I don't think we have 20 years to spare. Not this time.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
avataristhenewblog
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13209

posted 09 February 2007 01:33 PM      Profile for avataristhenewblog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Twenty years before people get with it? It's already been a prevalent issue for at least that long.

It's not like global warming and climate change are johnny-come-lately ideas...worry over the environment has been pretty well pushed into the mainstream since the late 80s. The creation of Earth Day was nearly 40 years ago was it not?

By the same token, it's been nearly 20 years since the creation of most of the country's blue box programs...I know I've been living in areas with blue box programs for 15 years or so now.

The time for people to stop procrastinating on this has already come and passed...what we're doing now is using up borrowed time.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 12 February 2007 09:06 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
OTTAWA: Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is taking Canada's Conservative government to task for suggesting he endorsed its performance on climate change.

The environmentalist, filmmaker and past presidential candidate issued a statement Monday to distance himself from the claim by the government of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"I understand that last week Canada's minister of the environment, John Baird, mischaracterized comments I made last summer as praise for the Harper government's actions on global warming," Gore wrote.

In the House of Commons, Baird has habitually responded to opposition questions by reading out statements ridiculing the Liberals' record on climate change. Last week, he read out a purported endorsement from Gore.

"Canada (is) once again providing leadership in the world, fighting above its weight class and showing moral authority to the rest of the world. That's what Canada's known for," Baird read. "Do we know who said that yesterday? Al Gore."

Gore said his statement was taken out of context, adding it was made last summer, not last week.

However, the government circulated a transcript from a Global TV interview that aired last week in which Gore said: "My friends in Canada tell me that across party lines, and in all regions, there is very strong support for Canada once again providing leadership in the world, fighting above its weight class and showing moral authority to the rest of the world."


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/12/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Gore.php


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 12 February 2007 10:15 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And in the category of here provinces, you go fix this GHG thingy:

quote:
Feds give provinces, territories $1.5B for climate change plans

Quebec gets $350 million of the money, more than it had asked for

Last Updated: Monday, February 12, 2007 | 6:06 PM ET

CBC News

The federal government will fund a $1.5-billion Eco-Trust and Clean Air Fund to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced on Monday.

Money from the fund will be distributed to provinces and territories to finance major projects to cut CO2 emissions and pollutants by encouraging technology development and energy efficiency that "will provide real results on the reduction of air pollution," Harper said.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
(Radio-Canada) Quebec will get about one-quarter of the fund, or $350 million, to finance the province's recently minted green plan, which pledges to achieve reduction targets outlined in the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

.................................

Parti Québécois Leader André Boisclair slammed Harper's environment announcement, calling it an "improvised" attempt to curry favour with Quebec voters.

The money comes from a hypothetical budget the Conservative government hasn't tabled and the House of Commons may not adopt, Boisclair reminded Quebecers.

...............


Wot! Crass electioneering, you say? This will make it a tad hard for the PQ, Liberals and NDP to vote against Harper's mythical budget to come.

Y'know -- I remember good old days on this continent when the head political honchos would use words like "Million". Now it's all Billion this, Billion that ...


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677

posted 13 February 2007 06:34 AM      Profile for Palamedes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lovely.

A whole lot of people who don't understand the ramifications of Kyoto have campaigned on a Green platform and obligated Canada to Kyoto - even though every other nation in the world with an energy base has either not signed it, or has no targets to achieve.

Of course, the fact that all Canadian companies will now have to deal with the cost, whereas our American counterparts will not, doesn't exactly help our competitive advantage.

And then you have China which is building a new coal-fired plant every week who shows no signs of letting the environment impact its growth. Naturally, plenty of companies will be moving to China to bypass Kyoto regulations.

The fact of the matter is that Kyoto is a bad agreement. First of all, you don't allocate emissions based on 'having a history of polluting' - you base emissions on population and GDP. The more people a country has, and the more it produces - the more it should be able to produce.

Furthermore, you have to bring in trade sanctions against nations that are not going to comply. You can't just give China a free pass, and allow industry to travel there, and then sell goods made in China at the expense of the environment back to Canada.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 13 February 2007 08:45 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who has caused the CO2 levels to skyrocked in the first place? It is in my view up to the developed world to show that they are serious. It seems a bit absurd to expect countries like Indonesia, India, Kenia and China, that start at a much smaller per capita environmental footprint, to be as pro-active on this issue. I believe that was part of the Kyoto agreement that those countries would stepp in the process a bit later.

Kyoto is just a small first step to get at this problem on an international basis.

[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: Bubbles ]


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677

posted 13 February 2007 10:11 AM      Profile for Palamedes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Any nation with a newly-developed economy would have to be insane to agree to Kyoto (at least with any real targets). The emissions are based on past-pollution - so unless you managed to pump out massive amounts of emissions in the 70's - you missed your change. Now the US and other nations can pump out pollution at close to the old levels, whereas your newly emerging economy has to turn off the taps.

I don't blame China for not signing, Kyoto is based on a bad premise. A new agreement needs to be made that is based on GDP production, and population - as opposed to awarding credits to nations for having a history of polluting.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 13 February 2007 01:20 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palamedes:
The fact of the matter is that Kyoto is a bad agreement. First of all, you don't allocate emissions based on 'having a history of polluting' - you base emissions on population and GDP. The more people a country has, and the more it produces - the more it should be able to produce. .

That is not true look at Canada we have 33 million people and have huge emissions.

quote:
Furthermore, you have to bring in trade sanctions against nations that are not going to comply. You can't just give China a free pass, and allow industry to travel there, and then sell goods made in China at the expense of the environment back to Canada.

You just argued against yourself. you said:

"The more people a country has, and the more it produces - the more it should be able to produce."

This means China should produce all it wants by your own rational.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677

posted 13 February 2007 01:55 PM      Profile for Palamedes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, first of all - Canada is doing a shit job when it comes to the environment - and yes, we should be reducing emissions substantially.

As for China, they have three times the population of the US, yet produce half the pollution. If they want to grow their economy and consumption - they are entitled to.

But the West wants to cap their pollution (and thus their growth) - simply because it took China too long to get their pollution up to Western standards.

My point in regards to putting sanctions to nation's that do not adhere to the agreements - is that it is in no single nation's interest to be part of an environmental agreement. If they are out of it, then they reap the reward of a cleaner world, and gain the competitive advantage of not having to bear the cost as other nations do.

[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: Palamedes ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 14 February 2007 07:46 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, Palamedes, I probably misunderstood you. But if you find Kyoto such a bad deal how would you rewrite it If forexample you had to deal with just three countries Canada, Switserland and Pakistan?
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677

posted 14 February 2007 10:24 AM      Profile for Palamedes        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, let's say that the total pollution currently is 200 units. And, we decide that we want the collective total to be 170.

Then we take the 170 pollution credits and allocate them based on:

a) GDP production

For example, if a nation produces 30% of the world's goods and only produces 20% of the world's pollution, then they are fairly efficient.

On the other hand, if a nation only produces 5% of the world's goods but produces 25% of the world's pollution - then we have a problem.

This would put the emphasis on efficiency - nations would strive to become more efficient - as opposed to potentially having to limit their growth in order to meet their targets.

The formula could then be modified by '

b) population - for example, you could set a cap on growth of production (and accompyaning pollution on population) - ie a nation with a billion people with low output is due to grow more.

c) industry base - tar sands oil for example cause more pollution than banana growth for example.

International taxes (the UN etc) could be levied based on a nation's total percentage of pollution.

The fact of the matter is that no nation is going to limit their production to meet Kyoto, but they will try to find better efficiencies.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Van resident
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7892

posted 14 February 2007 11:23 AM      Profile for Van resident     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
a bit absurd to expect countries like Indonesia, India, Kenia and China, that start at a much smaller per capita environmental footprint,

Global warming is not caused "per captia" but per unit of emission.

Perhaps we should stop selling coal to China.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 February 2007 11:55 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And what about all our energy exports being siphoned off to that giant TeraWatt light bulb to the south of us ?.

Canadians should all be driving around in Cadillacs for the amount of stuff we're paying them to take off our hands. It's a national disgrace.

[ 14 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 February 2007 03:20 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On Newman's show today: Harper won't be present at the Kyoto vote tonight.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 February 2007 04:43 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Contentious Kyoto bill passes

MPs voted 161-113 in favour of the Liberal bill Wednesday in a battle pitting the minority Tories against the opposition, the Senate, and the country’s legal community.

The government has hinted strongly that it will simply ignore Bill C-288 — even if it is approved by the Senate and becomes law, as expected.

But constitutional experts have said the government has no choice but to respect laws passed in Parliament, and they’ve warned that lawsuits lie ahead if it fails to do so.

The Liberals have charged that, in a parliamentary democracy, a government’s open defiance of the law is comparable to a “coup d’état.”

The Tories, meanwhile, have suggested they would be willing to face lawsuits or a non-confidence motion.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 February 2007 04:56 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Opposition MPs pass Kyoto bill despite Tory resistance

Rodriguez has said that his bill, which is expected to be passed by the Liberal-dominated Senate, would compel the government to act.

"They are bound to it. It's the law of the land," Rodriguez said before the vote. "The prime minister cannot cherry pick laws. He's not the new emperor of Canada.

"The government has to respect it and implement it. If not, we go to the courts," he said.

- snip -

However, Environment Minister John Baird says there are no consequences or penalties if the conditions of the bill aren't followed.

"It's really a toothless tiger. All it does is talk about more plans and more studies … we need real action," he said before the vote.

David Docherty, a professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, said it will be up to the opposition to enforce the bill — if it becomes law — and the government doesn't meet the deadline for action.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 15 February 2007 08:25 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[QB
"It's really a toothless tiger. All it does is talk about more plans and more studies … we need real action," he said before the vote.
[/QB]

Hey Johnny.. Aren't you you the guy in charge of this? Where's your 'real action'??


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 15 February 2007 08:36 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The problem is the country wants action now on fighting climate change, and this bill has to first go to the Senate, then there's six months for the govt to act, and if they don't someone may launch a lawsuit based on this Bill passed last night. A lawsuit could take upwards of a year. Before anything good comes of this Kyoto Bill (or lawsuit) forcing the govt to act, we likely will have been through the next election.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 15 February 2007 09:05 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palamedes:
But the West wants to cap their pollution (and thus their growth) - simply because it took China too long to get their pollution up to Western standards.

China has ratified Kyoto. China isn't required to cap or reduce its emissions under Kyoto. I thought that was one of your objections to the agreement, but now you're claiming the opposite?

Kyoto recognized the distinction between developed and developing countries. Only developed countries are required to reduce emmissions, because it's the developed countries that are emitting way too many greenhouse gasses.

The problems with your suggested alternative are that GDP is a bad measure for efficiency, population bears no relation to current emission levels, and nobody would ever be able to agree about industry base modifications. The best alternative is to use current emissions levels (aka 1990 levels) as a baseline, and require reductions from that level. Once you've obtained those reductions, then you can start to make further reductions in developed countries as developing countries increase their emissions, and begin targetting countries whose emissions are disproportionate to their population.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 15 February 2007 10:19 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Palamedes, I am trying to figure out how your system would work. To simplify things I take the following scenario.

One Canadian produces 17.9 tons of CO2/year and produces $2124/ton of CO2.

One Suisse produces 5.6 tons of CO2/year and produces $9415/ton of CO2.

One Pakistani produces 0.75 tons of CO2/year and produces $831/ton of CO2.

(These figures I got from Wikapedia)

Let us now assume we want to cut our CO2 in halve. To about 12 tons. According to your suggestion the Suisse would be allocated 9415 / 12370 x 12 = 9.1 ton of CO2. The Canadian would be allocated 2124 / 12370 x 12 = 2.1 tons of CO2 and the Pakistani
831 / 12370 x 12 = 0.8 tons of CO2. This would be based on GDP.

I am not sure how you intended to allow for your industrial base. The population issue I avoided by just having one person per country.

How are you going to make it better then Kyoto?


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 15 February 2007 01:25 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PM says he will 'respect' Kyoto bill

excerpt:

"Of course, if and when that becomes law, the government would respect it," Harper said in the House of Commons during question period Thursday. "I'll just point out that the bill has no plan of action in it; the bill gives the government no authority to spend any money to actually have a plan of action."


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 15 February 2007 01:36 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can the government just refuse to proclaim the law.

The BC government used this tactic in the 70s to deal with popular legislation they just didn't like. They passed the legislation but just didn't proclaim it. They could of course say, "We passed that legislation".

The only way the opposition could force things would be to:
1. Bring down the government.
2. Ask the GG to use her constitutional powers to give royal assent.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 June 2008 02:37 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Green group accuses Conservatives of ignoring Kyoto law

quote:
The federal government is ignoring a law requiring it to comply with the Kyoto Protocol and defying the will of Parliament, according to lawyers for an environmental group that has taken the accusation to court.

Lawyers for the non-profit group Friends of the Earth appeared before a Federal Court judge in Toronto Wednesday, asking for a court order to force Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government to follow the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, passed by Parliament a year ago.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  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