[UPDATED] Canadians: Your thoughts on what our country should do next re: the environment?

[yllus]

Note: This thread is not about debating the existence of global warming/climate change. Do that in any other thread. This thread is about what the nation of Canada should look at doing next to move in a more environment-friendly direction. It focuses on the immediately obvious first question: Do we stick to the Kyoto Protocol, or pull out?

Official Opposition leader Stephane Dion says, "Stephen Harper, build a carbon market now"

[Prime Minister Steven] Harper ... killed Project Green, cutting $5.6-billion worth of climate change programs. Then, when the world met last May in Bonn to discuss climate change, he sent his environment minister to sabotage the conference. The Canadian submission said clearly, "Canada will not support more stringent targets." Last November in Nairobi, the same message was sent: When it comes to Kyoto, count Canada out.

Mr. Harper's record of climate change denial was established long ago. In 2002, he wrote that "Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." In December, 2005, he said the Liberal decision to list greenhouse gases as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was "clearly not in the national interest." And in December, 2006, Mr. Harper spoke about "so-called greenhouse gas emissions."

I call on the Prime Minister to implement a comprehensive plan to honour Canada's Kyoto commitment, including a cap-and-trade carbon market, as was called for in Project Green. Given recent advances in technology, the carbon market in place in Europe and the time that has been wasted under the Conservative government, there is an opportunity and a necessity to set more demanding targets than were proposed in 2005. We need to move to put a market price on emissions, and we need to start transforming our economy and markets to reflect sustainable development.

I call on the Prime Minister to implement strong, fair and enforceable regulations on emission reductions -- in the short, medium and long term. Just as corporate polluters can't simply leave their garbage on our streets, we can no longer use our atmosphere as a free garbage dump.

I call on the Prime Minister to implement environmental tax reform and fiscal measures to reward good environmental behaviour in a way that enables every region and province to succeed in the sustainable economy.

I call on the Prime Minister to better support greener energy production and other forms of renewable energy, starting with a minimum target of 12,000 megawatts of renewable power production.

I call on the Prime Minister to better support the research, development and commercialization of resource-efficient and environment-friendly technologies.

I call on the Prime Minister to reinstate the partnership fund with provinces, supporting joint federal-provincial projects to reduce emissions.

Now, for the opinion portion of this post.

I wildly applaud Prime Minister Harper for calling Kyoto out for what it is: "Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." Forget that nonsense. It's not even well-meaning nonsense; it's a cash grab by Europe. But setting that aside, what would it take for us to meet Kyoto here and now like Mr. Dion would like? From the Globe and Mail:

Suppose Alberta eliminated all tar-sands development, including all existing development. That would cripple the province's economy, but it would save 30 million tonnes a year. Suppose Ontario shut down all of its coal-fired electrical-generation plants. That would save 24 million tonnes. Not even close to the targets.

To meet those targets, Canada would almost certainly be forced to buy emissions credits from other nations. That market is tight, because the Europeans and the Japanese have also been buying credits, often from the offshore operations of corporations that pay taxes to them. That's very convenient for them. Suppose Canada bought 90 million tonnes a year over the five-year period of the treaty? At the current price of roughly $23 a tonne, that could hit $10-billion. Even then, Canada would not meet its treaty obligations.

It gets worse. The Kyoto Protocol is essentially a trade treaty. Other nations, such as the United States and Britain, sent financially savvy negotiators. Canada sent aid and environmental experts. The terms reflect that imbalance. Energy-exporting nations such as Canada are held responsible for 60 per cent of all emissions from exported products such as natural gas.

Any nation that falls short of its commitments must carry a deficit multiplied by 1.3 onto its post-Kyoto balance sheet. If Canada does not meet its commitments, if it does not buy credits from other nations after 2012, Europe and Japan can impose sanctions on Canadian exports under World Trade Organization rules. "Essentially the treaty is operating against us as a permanent wealth transfer to other nations," Ms. Donnelly concludes.

I think I've made a pretty decent case in that keeping to the Kyoto Protocol is in no way in Canada's best interests. Does anyone have information that refutes any of the above, or presents the idea of compliance in a better light?

--

Update for Feb 9th 2007: Kyoto bill may force election

OTTAWA - A Liberal-sponsored bill that would legally require the Conservative government to abide by the Kyoto protocol's short-term targets will be debated for the final time in the House of Commons today, before going to a vote next week when it is all but guaranteed to pass.

Update for Feb 13th 2007: Liberals don't want C-30 passed: NDP

With an upcoming budget and the potential to defeat the government before any changes were made to the bill, the Liberals were seen as opportunists who could go into the potential election by saying the Conservatives did nothing for the environment and were still against the Kyoto Protocol.

[NDP MP Nathan Cullen] said that the committee has been trying to work with the Liberals, but they are not being cooperative. "We said to the Liberals if you have the solutions which you claim to have, [Liberal Leader Stéphane] Dion claims to understand the environment, then bring forward the proposals. Stuff them in and force the government to do the things they don't necessarily want to do," he said. "What they're doing instead is proposing a mountain of witness, delay tactic everywhere, slowing down the process and not doing the heavy lifting and actually bringing forward proposals, amendments and ideas."

Update for Feb 14th, 2007: Tories fail in last-ditch bid to kill opposition Kyoto bill

OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservative government lost a last effort to kill a Liberal bill that would require it to respect Canada's Kyoto commitments.

With the controversial bill up for a vote today, the Tories appealed to the Speaker of the House of Commons for the third time in less than a year to have Bill C-288 declared invalid. The Tories argued that the bill - which is supported by all opposition parties and is expected to pass easily - would force the government to spend money against its will.

The bill gives the government 60 days to table a detailed plan for reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Kyoto targets. It also compels the government to set fines or jail terms for businesses and industries that over-pollute.

The Liberals waded cautiously into the electoral sabre-rattling when asked if they might table a non-confidence motion, depending on the fate of C-288.

 

[eakers]

We need to drop out of Kyoto and this global warming alarmist crap.

 

[sandorski]

Even if we opt out of Kyoto, we need to reach those targets sooner or later, sooner is preferable.

 

[NoShangriLa]

I have to agree that it is better to reach the goal rather sooner than later. Beside that point I also have vested interest that Canadian go green. The very least that Kyoto Protocol implementation would reassure the air that I'm breathing is fresher.

Go green with Geothermal heat pump.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: eakers
We need to drop out of Kyoto and start making real progress towards low-emissions energy.

fixed.

 

[Stunt]

1) Improve air/water quality first; carbon dioxide comes second to other pollutants
2) Invest in technology to reduce fossil fuel consumption
3) Create tax incentives to reduce fossil fuel consumption
4) Aim for realistic targets on greenhouse gas reductions (using the above, and after a decade of Liberal inaction)
5) Lead all nations (namely US, China, India) towards a renewable energy plan
6) Make sure the Liberals and Dion don't form the next government...yikes!

That's my list of priorities for what to do next.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt
1) Improve air/water quality first; carbon dioxide comes second to other pollutants
2) Invest in technology to reduce fossil fuel consumption
3) Create tax incentives to reduce fossil fuel consumption
4) Aim for realistic targets on greenhouse gas reductions (using the above, and after a decade of Liberal inaction)
5) Lead all nations (namely US, China, India) towards a renewable energy plan
6) Make sure the Liberals and Dion don't form the next government...yikes!

That's my list of priorities for what to do next.

I disagree with item 1. I think we need action on other pollutants, but that CO2 probably comes first, especially since we are 10 years from implementing a solution in a broad sense, and will have 10 years after that dominated by gasoline powered automobiles (the average car now stays on the road longer than a decade).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Aside from the obvious things, we also need to begin working on plans for (voluntary and humane) ways to try to achieve zero popluation growth worldwide and even negative population growth.

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: eakers
We need to drop out of Kyoto and start making real progress towards low-emissions energy.

fixed.

lol
Kyoto really didn't do much did it.

And I find it funny that the US (and sometimes China) are the only developed nations NOT to ratify a lot of the UN resolutions (IIRC).

 

[SickBeast]

Kyoto doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Canada just needs to reduce emissions.

What most people don't realize is that at least 25% of our nation's energy is used on the built world, which includes buildings and roads. I think they should push green building legislation and stop the construction of cheap buildings that go up like hotcakes, only to be torn down every 15 years.

Not only that, but they should encourage smart design of buildings which optimize solar gain and stuff.

They should get going on bio-diesel. You should be able to buy it at all gas stations.

You should get a tax rebate for owning an "eco car".

All coal power plants should be shut down and replaced by hydroelectric or nuclear.

That should solve it IMO.

In terms of politics, I'm voting green.

 

[libs0n]

I agree with the take that Kyoto will not "fix" the problem of global warming, or even have much of an impact upon it. I believe that there was a study along those lines a few years back, that even if all the countries met their commitments the resultant reduction in greenhouse gasses would be a fraction of a percent. The response from the Kyoto crafters was the the Kyoto agreement was a "first step" toward more stringent resolutions that would in fact have an impact upon the goal, baby shoes.

I see global warming as an inevitable process, unstoppable; nothing other than half measures will be taken and those measures themselves will be rendered meaningless by the fossil fuel consumption of other components in the system. Yes, Denmark reduces its emissions to pre-90 levels, but China mines another billion pounds of coal and burns it for electricity. Cut back on your oil usage, and another customer without your morals will come along and purchase what you do not instead. Humanity will consume all that the Earth is capable of producing and a true reduction will come about only when she is no longer as fruitful. Whatever the consequences of those actions will be what we have to live with.

Meanwhile, it might come as a surprise considering what I just wrote above that I believe Canada should support the Kyoto goals, in name only. So here we are, patting ourselves on the back for not supporting an agreement using whatever convenient justifications we can come up with. And there they are, the industrialized countries of Europe, our competitors, having made investments in reducing their industrial energy consumption while they then market their products and systems to an energy starved world. Interested in installing a windmill? Don't look to Canada, consider perhaps a Danish model. Sure you can buy your whatever from Canada, but we've reduced the energy to create a single one of those in half over here, and thus you save most of the difference. Price of gas gone through the roof? Good thing we've been living with an artificially increased oil price these past twenty years and our entire economy is now structured around that. Kyoto isn't just a climate change program, but a means to increase the efficiency of one's economy to further compete along those lines. Meanwhile we'll sit here and rust like good dinosaurs, clinging to our seemingly cheap energy infrastructure.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: wizboy11

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: eakers
We need to drop out of Kyoto and start making real progress towards low-emissions energy.

fixed.

lol
Kyoto really didn't do much did it.

And I find it funny that the US (and sometimes China) are the only developed nations NOT to ratify a lot of the UN resolutions (IIRC).

What is really sad is how pollution has been increasing in Canada.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Kyoto doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Canada just needs to reduce emissions.

What most people don't realize is that at least 25% of our nation's energy is used on the built world, which includes buildings and roads. I think they should push green building legislation and stop the construction of cheap buildings that go up like hotcakes, only to be torn down every 15 years.

Not only that, but they should encourage smart design of buildings which optimize solar gain and stuff.

They should get going on bio-diesel. You should be able to buy it at all gas stations.

You should get a tax rebate for owning an "eco car".

All coal power plants should be shut down and replaced by hydroelectric or nuclear.

That should solve it IMO.

In terms of politics, I'm voting green.

At the moment, nuclear is the only proven technology with the capacity to replace fossil fuels at the infrastructure level.

Building homes and buildings with solar or possibly wind power (and better insulation) is the second step - essentially reducing our need for external energy sources.

We need to do two things; reduce our need for energy (which will take a century or more of effort) and generate that energy more cleanly in terms of pollution and CO2 emissions (which can be accomplished in a few decades).

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
What most people don't realize is that at least 25% of our nation's energy is used on the built world, which includes buildings and roads. I think they should push green building legislation and stop the construction of cheap buildings that go up like hotcakes, only to be torn down every 15 years.

Not only that, but they should encourage smart design of buildings which optimize solar gain and stuff.

Agreed 100%. Cars, while being demonized quite regularly as the primary culprit contributing to negative changes to the environment, are actually a very small part of the problem. I'd love to see legislation to offer tax incentives to buyers and builders who build all new developments to the ENERGY STAR® for New Homes standard. High-density buildings (residental and commercial both) are even more crucial - there's no reason that we should let the ever-more precious real estate be built upon by 'wasteful' builders. I know, Toronto in particular has had a stall in new construction in its core for the last half decade, but if we offer the right incentives...

Originally posted by: libs0n
Meanwhile, it might come as a surprise considering what I just wrote above that I believe Canada should support the Kyoto goals, in name only. So here we are, patting ourselves on the back for not supporting an agreement using whatever convenient justifications we can come up with. And there they are, the industrialized countries of Europe, our competitors, having made investments in reducing their industrial energy consumption while they then market their products and systems to an energy starved world. Interested in installing a windmill? Don't look to Canada, consider perhaps a Danish model. Sure you can buy your whatever from Canada, but we've reduced the energy to create a single one of those in half over here, and thus you save most of the difference. Price of gas gone through the roof? Good thing we've been living with an artificially increased oil price these past twenty years and our entire economy is now structured around that. Kyoto isn't just a climate change program, but a means to increase the efficiency of one's economy to further compete along those lines. Meanwhile we'll sit here and rust like good dinosaurs, clinging to our seemingly cheap energy infrastructure.

I completely agree with the 'spirit' of Kyoto, but I'd never have penned Canada's signature to it for what it says in reality. It's our fleecing at the hands of the Europeans while they go ahead and have a grand time modernizing their energy infrastructure. That's well and good, but I never signed on to pay billions in tax dollars to modernize Estonia's industry.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: DVK916
If by 2020 kyoto isn't met worldwide expect a death toll to be around 100 million people.

got to love crack pot predictions. First off they hope that by 2020 everyone forgets the prediction when it doesn't come true. Then they figure they can blame any deaths they want on pollution by strecthing the definitions till they nearly break.


IOW - its a bogus number, only created to make headlines and inspire fear.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Troll
...

got to love crack pot predictions. First off they hope that by 2020 everyone forgets the prediction when it doesn't come true. Then they figure they can blame any deaths they want on pollution by strecthing the definitions till they nearly break.

IOW - its a bogus number, only created to make headlines and inspire fear.

Do not respond to the troll, please - especially if it's your only contribution to the thread. Ignoring him should cause him to go away.

 

[yllus]

Update on the Kyoto Protocol situation in Canada:

Harper to ignore motion on reconfirming Kyoto

Stephen Harper will disregard a motion adopted in the House of Commons yesterday that calls on the government to respect its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

The three federal opposition parties teamed up in Parliament yesterday, along with a former Conservative MP, to defeat the Tories in a 161-115 vote.

But the Prime Minister, who was absent during the vote, insisted earlier that his minority government would instead continue developing its own plan to fight climate change and improve air quality with achievable targets.

Liberal leader Stephane Dion introduced the motion last week to embarrass the Conservatives, who have rejected the international Kyoto treaty that requires its member countries to reduce their greenhouse gas pollution below 1990 levels to fight the effects of global warming.

The motion calls on the government to "reconfirm Canada's commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety," and to "publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions," with regulations that would allow for the creation of a carbon trading market system to penalize large polluters and reward those that reduce pollution.

Despite warnings from a panel of scientists who concluded last week that global warming was "unequivocal," Mr. Harper dismissed Canada's Kyoto commitments as "fantasy."

"The audacity of the Liberal leader is incredible," Mr. Harper said during Question Period. "He says that he could not make the targets from 1997 to 2006 and he will not be able to meet them from 2008 to 2012. It turns out the only year he can meet them actually happens to be this year when he does not have the responsibility."

Although greenhouse gas emissions rose by nearly 30% while the Liberals were in power, Mr. Dion blamed the Conservatives for scrapping the plan he introduced in 2005 as environment minister to honour the Kyoto agreement in Canada.

I know this is serious business, but I laughed at Prime Minister Harper's easy riposte. A lot. :laugh:

One of the qualities of a good leader is being able to stand firm no matter what the polls and your opposition are pushing you to do - a quality that can also be disastrous, but I think Harper is playing this one right. We need to get out, not suddenly decide after years of inaction to please the public by pretending to try and most definitely failing.

 

[sandorski]

Nah, we need to bring Others in. Just get it done and quit chasing our tails on what we should do.

 

[desy]

I was disappointed at the Conservative plan for 2050 with zero short term or immediate goals. They can fix it, and this is what I'd do

1 GST rebate for small car purchases, not hybrids or weirdo tech, good ole econoboxes.
2 change the deficeit reduction tax to enviro-tax on gasoline and increase it. Use that
money to fund alternatives 'point 7' mass transit, infastructure so much fuel is wasted in traffic jams.
3 tax incandescant bulbs to cost parity with CFL's 'not ban them like California' cold weather still needs an incandescant and we should have a choice, doing this would further drive down the price of CFL's.
4 Use the tax from that to rebate rennovations to high effeciency furnaces and geo-thermal systems for industrial use, insulating , new windows etc.
5 Outlaw sale of mid-efficiency appliances and air conditioning which new demand will drive down costs.
6 Moratorium on Oil Sands expansion until they can prove some effeciency targets.
this is what I find most hypocritical about Dion Under his watch they approved two Tar-Sand expansions with little regard for the environment Kyoto or anything else now they want to shut it down? F-Off Dion
7 Keep moving to Green or CO2 free electrical production and fast track it . Tidal, Solar ,Nuclear ,Hydro, Wind I don't care just start doing it. ..

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: desy
I was disappointed at the Conservative plan for 2050 with zero short term or immediate goals. They can fix it, and this is what I'd do

1 GST rebate for small car purchases, not hybrids or weirdo tech, good ole econoboxes.
2 change the deficeit reduction tax to enviro-tax on gasoline and increase it. Use that
money to fund alternatives 'point 7' mass transit, infastructure so much fuel is wasted in traffic jams.
3 tax incandescant bulbs to cost parity with CFL's 'not ban them like California' cold weather still needs an incandescant and we should have a choice, doing this would further drive down the price of CFL's.
4 Use the tax from that to rebate rennovations to high effeciency furnaces and geo-thermal systems for industrial use, insulating , new windows etc.
5 Outlaw sale of mid-efficiency appliances and air conditioning which new demand will drive down costs.
6 Moratorium on Oil Sands expansion until they can prove some effeciency targets.
this is what I find most hypocritical about Dion Under his watch they approved two Tar-Sand expansions with little regard for the environment Kyoto or anything else now they want to shut it down? F-Off Dion
7 Keep moving to Green or CO2 free electrical production and fast track it . Tidal, Solar ,Nuclear ,Hydro, Wind I don't care just start doing it. ..

1. Agree, also with an incentive for manufacturers to produce more clean diesel vehicles.
2. No opinion currently.
3,4. Agree
5. Disagree.
6. No opinion currently.
7. Strongly agree. Fvck hippies.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Aside from the obvious things, we also need to begin working on plans for (voluntary and humane) ways to try to achieve zero popluation growth worldwide and even negative population growth.

No one wants to discuss the issue of population?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Aside from the obvious things, we also need to begin working on plans for (voluntary and humane) ways to try to achieve zero popluation growth worldwide and even negative population growth.

No one wants to discuss the issue of population?

Population control is not popular with the masses. Kind of like the draft.

 

[desy]

Without immigration Canada's population is in decline.
What else is there to discuss? we aren't procreating. . .

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Aside from the obvious things, we also need to begin working on plans for (voluntary and humane) ways to try to achieve zero popluation growth worldwide and even negative population growth.

No one wants to discuss the issue of population?

Canada is big and can withstand a much larger populace (along with the US).

On the world stage it might be an issue, but we should focus on living cleaner IMO.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Aside from the obvious things, we also need to begin working on plans for (voluntary and humane) ways to try to achieve zero popluation growth worldwide and even negative population growth.

No one wants to discuss the issue of population?

Canada is big and can withstand a much larger populace (along with the US).

On the world stage it might be an issue, but we should focus on living cleaner IMO.

Pretty much. Globally we should work towards lowering Birth Rates, but there's only so much you can do in that regard. At least ethically.