|
reason 183 not to vote Conservative...the environment
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
So now Stephen Harper knows more about the environment and pollution than experts and professors? NONE of his 58 billion in spending is diverting Kyoto money to environment programs. He SAYS he's going to do things...but the details, as with so much of his platform, are non-existent.
I've bolded interesting parts in this Toronto Star article and added comments in italics:
Kyoto top of mind — thanks to Harper
Plan to scrap treaty an issue
Canadians have supported accord
PETER GORRIE
FEATURE WRITER
Stephen Harper has left no doubt where he stands on the Kyoto Protocol and climate change.
At a campaign stop in Barrie last week, Harper said a Conservative government would scrap the protocol — aimed at reducing global emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases.
As a supportive audience baked in muggy heat, he said he'd focus, instead, on urban smog and other forms of toxic pollution.
"Kyoto is never going to be passed and I think we'd be better to spend our time on realistic pollution control measures.
"Carbon dioxide, while linked to global warming, is not a threat to air quality. Carbon dioxide does not cause or contribute to smog, and the Kyoto treaty would do nothing to reduce or prevent smog."
The policy isn't new to anyone who has perused the Conservatives' brief environmental platform. That document promises to: "redirect federal spending aimed at fulfilling the terms of the increasingly irrelevant Kyoto Protocol to concrete programs to ensure clean air, water and land and to promote energy conservation."
Harper has previously said he doubts the scientific evidence that the build-up of greenhouse gases caused by our addiction to gasoline, oil and other fossil fuels is leading to potentially cataclysmic change in Earth's atmosphere.
"I think the science is still evolving," he said in Barrie.
Environmentalists say the Conservative policy is frightening. But they couldn't be happier that the issue has finally emerged from the dark recesses of the platform's fine print into the cold light of media and voter scrutiny.
"Thank goodness people are going to notice," says Elizabeth May, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Anything that makes this an election issue is good."
The policy puts the Conservatives starkly at odds with the other major parties on a policy that's important for symbolic and practical reasons.
The protocol "is the touchstone for all environmental politics," much like the battle to stop acid rain was in the mid-1980s, says Doug Macdonald, head of the environmental studies program at the University of Toronto's Innes College.
"Of all the things in their platform, it's the most significant."
It makes no sense to attack smog and other conventional pollution while ignoring greenhouse gases, because climate change is the bedrock issue — "the biggest single threat" to the environment and human civilization, May says. "We take the risk of propelling the planet's atmosphere out of a range of chemistry that sustains life on Earth."
No offense to Harper...but I'll take the word of the head of the Environmental Studies at UofT thanks!
There have been plenty of warnings — in the form of increasingly severe storms, droughts, heat waves and floods — that climate change is taking hold, and more quickly than expected, environmentalists say.
Opinion polls suggest Canadians are worried, and strongly back the protocol. Support has ranged from two-thirds to more than 80 per cent.
Yet, over the first three weeks of the campaign the issue has had little impact. Kyoto supporters hope that will now change.
In previous elections, the environment has played only a small role because it was a motherhood issue, May says. This time, it's not: "There are startling differences. It's black and white."
Despite fierce business opposition, then prime minister Jean Chrétien pushed ratification of the protocol through the House of Commons and then signed the treaty in December 2002.
"It was the biggest battle we've had over an environmental issue," Macdonald says.
Since then, the Liberal government has announced $2 billion worth of measures over five years to curb greenhouse gases, although Canada's emissions continue to rise. Critics say the federal targets are too cautious and major initiatives — such as improving cars' fuel efficiency — are failing.
The protocol has been endorsed by almost 100 countries, representing about 40 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It won't come into legal effect until 55 per cent of emissions are accounted for.
The United States, by far the biggest polluter, won't ratify the treaty. Russia remains the major holdout: Its support would vault the agreement over the 55 per cent threshold.
The protocol is riddled with flaws and loopholes.
Only 40 developed countries were assigned targets. A few, including Australia and Iceland, are allowed increases. Many, like Canada, are far behind their targets.
The remaining countries, including giant China and India, aren't yet covered because they're still "developing."
The Conservatives don't expect the agreement will be "put into play" because Russia isn't likely to sign on, says party spokesperson Andrew Skaling. "It kind of becomes null and void if those guys aren't there."
Environmentalists, on the other hand, anticipate Russia will ratify the protocol this summer. "That's a bridge we'll cross when we get there," Skaling says.
Instead of climate change, the Conservatives would focus on tougher penalties for some pollution violations, a Clean Air Act to cap emissions that cause smog, and tax breaks for redeveloping urban properties.
They also support measures already in place to clean up contaminated industrial and mine sites.
And they say they'd work with the provinces to develop a national strategy for alternative energy and energy conservation.
But no targets are proposed. Most of the measures are to be "negotiated," "investigated" or "developed."
Again, wishy washy non-committal TALK, but no firm platform or details...just like on abortion, gay marriage, etc.
It's not clear how much Kyoto money would be diverted to other environmental programs. None of the $57.8 billion in proposed new spending over five years is allocated to them.
Many environmentalists fear the Conservatives would gut Environment Canada and other federal departments to keep their commitment to cut taxes, increase spending on health care and maintain a balanced budget.
The Liberals, NDP, Bloc Québécois and Green party all endorse the Kyoto Protocol and promise a variety of measures to combat climate change.
Most involve commitments for more wind turbines and other alternative energy sources, as well as conservation measures such as tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and retrofits to make buildings more efficient.
There are "shades of difference in detail and scope," May says.
"You can argue about who has the better platform."
But, she says, it's like debating whether they merit grades of A or B. "Then you've got Harper, who's getting an F."
Observers say it's tough to determine how much environmental issues might influence votes. Increased support for the Green party suggests they're important to many voters, Macdonald says. But, "who knows if it's because of the environment. That's only part of their platform."
While Kyoto scores well in polls, the environment is usually a top concern for only 2 or 3 per cent of respondents — the same low level as almost all issues other than health care.
The prominence of alternative energy is also related to concern over the rising cost of gasoline and heating oil, as well as an interest in developing homegrown, high-tech industries. Support for Kyoto might be tied to voters' desire for policies that distinguish Canada from the current U.S. administration and President George W. Bush.
However, it is significant, Macdonald says. "All the symbolism does carry some weight in terms of what is done."
Particularly in Ontario and Quebec, "the bulk of people ... especially those who are middle-class and educated, would wrap it up with all the feel-good environmental issues." |
|
|
| kwongandy |
i can't wait for jayx1's witty reply. i think jayx1 will have to dig into back issues for an anti-liberal response.
too bad jayx1 is so predictable and lacks any adult debate, where his typical responses are so childlike and always has the need for the last word.
i put jayx1 on ignore, but there are some threads i read regardless to get my laugh for the day. |
|
|
| MarkT |
he can say what he wants...the fact of the matter is that EVERY other party supports Kyoto and the Conservatives don't.
Why do other countries not sign on? It's not because they don't think Kyoto is beneficial, it's because it would cost them and their industries a FORTUNE to comply.
I neglected to highlight perhaps the most important part:
"It's not clear how much Kyoto money would be diverted to other environmental programs. None of the $57.8 billion in proposed new spending over five years is allocated to them.
Many environmentalists fear the Conservatives would gut Environment Canada and other federal departments to keep their commitment to cut taxes, increase spending on health care and maintain a balanced budget."
I TOTALLY EXPECT THIS...the Conservatives have earmarked SO much money for all of their tell-people-what-they-want-to-hear crap like tax breaks, that things like Kyoto and the Environment will be what suffer or get scrapped to pay for all of their nonsense.
I'm not going to beg people to vote Liberal, but for goodness' sake, don't vote Conservative simply as a backlash against them. THINK ABOUT WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES STAND FOR (in this case, what they DON'T stand for). |
|
|
| k0nk |
I agree. They would likely scrap the program, and send that $58 billion to healthcare.
Interesting, because the greens are the exact opposite. How can we be healthy in an unhealthy environment? |
|
|
| TECHno addict |
 |
|
|
| vickyvale |
^^^^^^
Jeff....is that Richard??? :conf: :haha: |
|
|
| drgoodvibe |
| quote: | Originally posted by k0nk
How can we be healthy in an unhealthy environment? |
agreed! |
|
|
|
|
