A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
I know. The comment was ment to reflect a certain amount of ignorance in those who find the current imperialist escapades of the US justifiable.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
cacruden:
I am curious - just how would one go about reducing emissions and set priorities without setting goals in the first place? It's like someone saying, "I will do better the next exam:, then when the results comes out with half a point of improvement, they pat themselves on the back and saying "it's a job well done".
Oh no doubt. But is it any more or less dishonest than saying one'd stick with Kyoto, then turns around and say that ain't so? If the Cons really are THAT honest, they'd have said, for the sake of our oil and gas industry, we really couldn't give a sh*t about Kyoto or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not this nebulous talk about "made in Canada" solution, etc (which incidentally is also what the US and Aus. used as their argument for not doing much about anything).
AoD
I am curious - just how would one go about reducing emissions and set priorities without setting goals in the first place? It's like someone saying, "I will do better the next exam:, then when the results comes out with half a point of improvement, they pat themselves on the back and saying "it's a job well done".
If there was an honest try at reducing emissions -- ours would not have grown faster than the US emissions during the same period.
They rushed into committing to it, without first sitting down and developing an action plan on how it was going to be acheived -- all politics no action -- just another example of political dishonesty.
Oh no doubt. But is it any more or less dishonest than saying one'd stick with Kyoto, then turns around and say that ain't so? If the Cons really are THAT honest, they'd have said, for the sake of our oil and gas industry, we really couldn't give a sh*t about Kyoto or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not this nebulous talk about "made in Canada" solution, etc (which incidentally is also what the US and Aus. used as their argument for not doing much about anything).
AoD
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Iranians are not Arabs, they're Persians.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
It doesnt take much effort to understand why The Conservatives are so eager to leave Kyoto. Of course the tar sands and the pollution that they produce is one reason. But look further and you find out lots of other interesting facts too.
From Natural Resources Canada we can learn that 81% of Alberta's and 69% of Saskatchewans electrical generation comes from coal. Now if these two provinces were required to meet Kyoto requirements this would mean a huge amount of money would have to be invested in converting coal plants to cleaner burning technology, or closed down all together. So while other provinces such as Ontario and Quebec are investing in Wind Turbines, converting to natural gas and shutting down coal plants, the easiest way the western provinces to avoid that is to get out of Kyoto so that it can avoid having to do all that. Given that the western provinces also produce coal, if these plants were forced to close down or retool, this would also have a negative economic effect on the provinces, which, obviously they want to try to avoid. And killing Kyoto serves the western provinces very well.
From Natural Resources Canada we can learn that 81% of Alberta's and 69% of Saskatchewans electrical generation comes from coal. Now if these two provinces were required to meet Kyoto requirements this would mean a huge amount of money would have to be invested in converting coal plants to cleaner burning technology, or closed down all together. So while other provinces such as Ontario and Quebec are investing in Wind Turbines, converting to natural gas and shutting down coal plants, the easiest way the western provinces to avoid that is to get out of Kyoto so that it can avoid having to do all that. Given that the western provinces also produce coal, if these plants were forced to close down or retool, this would also have a negative economic effect on the provinces, which, obviously they want to try to avoid. And killing Kyoto serves the western provinces very well.
B
blixa442
Guest
If that's the case then why is Quebec & Ontario lining up behind Harper?
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
If that's the case then why is Quebec & Ontario lining up behind Harper?
Id say they are two main reasons. The first is that both of those provinces do have a traditional, long standing Conservative base. These are the people who actually stand to gain from their policies because they are in the upper middle to upper class brackets where most of the tax cuts will be felt to the greatest extent, and the promise of less taxation always plays well in these circles.
The second is ignorance. These are people who largely vote based on the rhetoric and politiking they see during campaigns. The only time they ever follow politics is during an election, or when a scandal gets flashed across the Toronto Sun or Le Journal De Montreal. Harper has done his job well in this respect. He has played Martin and the Liberals out to be a corrupt idiot and announced policies that often sound good, even if in reality they would have limited benefit to voters in lower to middle tax brackets. Another way of terming it would the 'TV Image' vote, based on who looks and sounds best in the superficial world of media and ignoring how policies actually effect them.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Kyoto is irrelevent to the "cleanness" of a fossil fuel. Kyoto is only concerned with the amount of CO_2 equivalent that is expelled into the atmosphere. I imagine that even if coal does expell more CO2 per unit of electricity generated than gas does, the cheapness of coal more than offsets it.
D
Danny225
Guest
for the first time in my life I started warming up to the conservatives.. then it hit me again, what was I thinking?? |I
a possible war, no real funding for cities.. kindda scary...
I just can't STAND Martin.. I can't he really bugs me!
a possible war, no real funding for cities.. kindda scary...
I just can't STAND Martin.. I can't he really bugs me!
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Kyoto is irrelevent to the "cleanness" of a fossil fuel. Kyoto is only concerned with the amount of CO_2 equivalent that is expelled into the atmosphere. I imagine that even if coal does expell more CO2 per unit of electricity generated than gas does, the cheapness of coal more than offsets it.
Yes, Kyoto does not deal with things like sulphur emissions or other pollutants however I am pretty sure when an equal amount of gas or coal is burning the burning gas creates more generated energy and therefore creates less CO2. The cheapness of coal would not offset the amount of CO2 created... I'm not sure what you are saying is offset. The point of Kyoto is that there is an increasing amount of CO2 being produced leading to environmental change. Greater population + greater energy consumption + reduction in the amount of plant life (shrinking forests and wilderness areas) on the planet = an imbalance. If we were somehow increasing the amount of CO2 being converted back to O2 at the same rate we were increasing the conversion of O2 to CO2 we would be OK but there is no plan anywhere to do that. Kyoto is about getting it under control in hopes the plant life on the planet has the capacity to handle the CO2 already out there... but that isn't certain either. Kyoto is about taking the foot off the gas pedal (literally) but it doesn't fully address how to put on the brakes. Obviously Kyoto is an important first step.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
Maybe the reference to the cheap cost of coal offsetting emissions has to do with the ability to buy and sell CO2 credits to compensate for increased pollution while still being cheaper than actually converting plants to cleaner technology or investing in renewable energies all thogether.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Martin has proved incapable of leading this election. He hasn't been strong at verbalizing policy arguments and verbalizing the fallacy of Harpers agenda and attacks. Its a shame because I think he is a good guy and is on the right side of the argument but he is loosing because he is weak at the microphone. There are four national parties out there to choose from... why is it so automatic that if you can't vote Liberal for whatever reason that the fallback is the Conservatives.
G
ganjavih
Guest
I'm surprised how inept Martin has proven to be as PM. He was so promising as Finance Minister, beloved across the country... and now fallen flat on his face. This campaign has been a disaster.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
I agree with your comments about Martin. While I still wouldnt vote for the Liberal party I do think his policies are overall better than the Conservatives. But his performance during the election has been really weak. His public speaking in particular seems to be his downfall. He is good when he is on topic but when the pressure is on him he seems to stumble over words a bit and not be able to verbalize his thoughts very well. A shame really.
Im a bit surprised too that the tendency has been towards the Conservatives as such a strong Liberal counter point instead of the other parties. I know part of the problem with the NDP is they are still having trouble shaking off the anti-business image. Overall Jack Layton has done well and he seems to have learned a lot about how to play the game of Federal politics in the past year and a half. And he does have appeal in Quebec. Im not sure why its not translating into more support though. Maybe its just because there has been so much media attention on the Liberals and Conservatives that he hasnt been able to get the exposure he needs.
The Green party seems to be slowly making inroads and it will be curious to see whether they make any gains this election. I think for them to be a strong contender though they need a leader other than Jim Harris. He hasnt struck me as being a strong leader and I think if the party could find someone with a stronger public appeal and who was able to push his way through the media and make his voice heard, they would fare a lot better.
I think a lot of it just has to do with old habits. Younger people may be more willing to explore parties such as the NDP or Greens, but when you get into rural ridings or the baby boomer and beyond crowd, there seems to be a 'one or the other' mentality.
While Harper has run a good campaign in terms of strategy and trying to improve his image, I would say the biggest factor in so many flocking to the Conservatives as a Liberal alternative is a bit of lazyness. They have grown tired of the Liberals and want a change. Harper says all the right things 'social programs, tax cuts, etc' and if people make their choices simply based on sound bites and election coverage in various media and dont actually examine policies deeper, than Harper seems ok. Maybe if they took the time to do a little research on party platforms, what those policies actually mean and how they would affect them personally, people would begin to look at other options. But so long as people just treat elections as chores and stick with 'lesser of evils' or 'strategic voting' or other lazy attitudes toward politics, its going to be hard to see a parliment that isnt in the hands of the Conservatives or Liberals.
Im a bit surprised too that the tendency has been towards the Conservatives as such a strong Liberal counter point instead of the other parties. I know part of the problem with the NDP is they are still having trouble shaking off the anti-business image. Overall Jack Layton has done well and he seems to have learned a lot about how to play the game of Federal politics in the past year and a half. And he does have appeal in Quebec. Im not sure why its not translating into more support though. Maybe its just because there has been so much media attention on the Liberals and Conservatives that he hasnt been able to get the exposure he needs.
The Green party seems to be slowly making inroads and it will be curious to see whether they make any gains this election. I think for them to be a strong contender though they need a leader other than Jim Harris. He hasnt struck me as being a strong leader and I think if the party could find someone with a stronger public appeal and who was able to push his way through the media and make his voice heard, they would fare a lot better.
I think a lot of it just has to do with old habits. Younger people may be more willing to explore parties such as the NDP or Greens, but when you get into rural ridings or the baby boomer and beyond crowd, there seems to be a 'one or the other' mentality.
While Harper has run a good campaign in terms of strategy and trying to improve his image, I would say the biggest factor in so many flocking to the Conservatives as a Liberal alternative is a bit of lazyness. They have grown tired of the Liberals and want a change. Harper says all the right things 'social programs, tax cuts, etc' and if people make their choices simply based on sound bites and election coverage in various media and dont actually examine policies deeper, than Harper seems ok. Maybe if they took the time to do a little research on party platforms, what those policies actually mean and how they would affect them personally, people would begin to look at other options. But so long as people just treat elections as chores and stick with 'lesser of evils' or 'strategic voting' or other lazy attitudes toward politics, its going to be hard to see a parliment that isnt in the hands of the Conservatives or Liberals.
R
rbtaylor
Guest
If Chrétien were still prime minister I have no doubt that there would have been a Liberal majority last election. He seemed to have the ability to make us completely forget about the negative aspects and make fun of the questioner instead. Many people remember the Golf Ball incident but very few seem to remember the accusation that caused Chrétien to take them to the inquiry.I'm surprised how inept Martin has proven to be as PM. He was so promising as Finance Minister, beloved across the country... and now fallen flat on his face. This campaign has been a disaster.
S
spmarshall
Guest
That's what is worrying me - if the Conservatives win, it will be hailed as a sign that Canadians are moving right, which is not the case at all. It's just that people are pissed off, and voting for the loudest party that's exploiting that the most.
Again, the silver lining is that Paul Martin is history. On fiscal/economic issues there's really not that much difference. There's a bit more difference on social issues, but I think Martin went against what he wanted on some of those.
Again, the silver lining is that Paul Martin is history. On fiscal/economic issues there's really not that much difference. There's a bit more difference on social issues, but I think Martin went against what he wanted on some of those.