Conservatives spoke honestly about Kyoto and China
ridenrain @ Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:19 am
$1:
A Tory week that wasn't
Conservatives spoke honestly about Kyoto and China and the press hated it
By PAUL STANWAY
Last week should have been a good week for the Harper government, with Environment Minister Rona Ambrose talking honestly about the Kyoto accord, and the PM insisting human rights are more important to Canadians than "the almighty dollar."
You'd think that's the sort of stuff Canadians want from their government and would strongly support. And maybe they would, if the message wasn't filtered through dysfunctional media coverage.
That's a serious charge, and as a reporter and editor for 35 years I take no pleasure in making it. Some of my colleagues will inevitably suggest it shows my own bias, but I'll let you make up your own mind on that score.
Judging by media reports from the UN conference on climate change in Nairobi, Ambrose was uniquely scorned because she's "abandoned" or "repudiated" the Martin-Chretien support of the Kyoto accord.
Much was made of the fact that -- in the words of The Canadian Press -- "Ambrose received two 'fossil of the day' awards from environmentalists at the conference."
Liberal environment minister Stephane Dion got the same award in 2004, which triggered no stories. When his Grit predecessor David Anderson won it in 2002 -- zero attention! We did a little better in 2001, four "fossil" awards and four stories, but any reasonable person might deduce from this that there is one standard for Liberal environment ministers and another for Ambrose.
What did the Alberta MP do to generate the criticism? "Canada is the only country that has publicly repudiated its targets under the climate treaty," reported CP. Correct. Ambrose has conceded that Canada cannot meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.
We can't do it because under the Liberal governments that committed Canada to that goal our emissions increased 30%. Yet according to the nonsense regurgitated by most media last week, Canadians should believe this failure is entirely the responsibility of a government and minister on the job for less than a year.
The Grits may be environmental failures, but the Tories are worse. They're not doing anything. At least that's the impression left by much of last week's coverage.
Except that the Harper government agreed with the other 179 nations in Nairobi to fast-track updating Kyoto. Some countries exempt from the original plan, notably China, argued to delay that as long as possible in an attempt to keep their Kyoto-free status. No "fossils" for them.
Ambrose is working with the Europeans on a green technology fund, and is even talking about linking Canada to the European system of trading pollution credits -- a move which won't make her Miss Congeniality in Alberta or with the climate-change sceptics in her party.
As for Harper himself, on a trip to Asia he did what so many in the media have long called for and placed human rights firmly on the agenda for talks with emerging super-power China. The result? Well, one headline in Canada's self-proclaimed conservative national newspaper, the National Post, sums up the reaction: "Heavy-handed Harper upsets business."
NOW TRADE MATTERS
In a neck-jarring about-face, most media suddenly argue that trade is what really matters in our relations with a country that remains a totalitarian dictatorship. What supreme hypocrisy!
But it's on par with Liberal environmental critic John Godfrey and the various Canadian environmental lobbyists who spent last week dumping on Ambrose, and then had the cheek to complain she'd used an international meeting for "partisan" purposes after she rather demurely alluded to the failures of "previous governments" to do much of anything on Kyoto.
A fair shake from the media? Only if your definition of fair is a kick in the head.
Toronto Sun
Conservatives spoke honestly about Kyoto and China and the press hated it
By PAUL STANWAY
Last week should have been a good week for the Harper government, with Environment Minister Rona Ambrose talking honestly about the Kyoto accord, and the PM insisting human rights are more important to Canadians than "the almighty dollar."
You'd think that's the sort of stuff Canadians want from their government and would strongly support. And maybe they would, if the message wasn't filtered through dysfunctional media coverage.
That's a serious charge, and as a reporter and editor for 35 years I take no pleasure in making it. Some of my colleagues will inevitably suggest it shows my own bias, but I'll let you make up your own mind on that score.
Judging by media reports from the UN conference on climate change in Nairobi, Ambrose was uniquely scorned because she's "abandoned" or "repudiated" the Martin-Chretien support of the Kyoto accord.
Much was made of the fact that -- in the words of The Canadian Press -- "Ambrose received two 'fossil of the day' awards from environmentalists at the conference."
Liberal environment minister Stephane Dion got the same award in 2004, which triggered no stories. When his Grit predecessor David Anderson won it in 2002 -- zero attention! We did a little better in 2001, four "fossil" awards and four stories, but any reasonable person might deduce from this that there is one standard for Liberal environment ministers and another for Ambrose.
What did the Alberta MP do to generate the criticism? "Canada is the only country that has publicly repudiated its targets under the climate treaty," reported CP. Correct. Ambrose has conceded that Canada cannot meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.
We can't do it because under the Liberal governments that committed Canada to that goal our emissions increased 30%. Yet according to the nonsense regurgitated by most media last week, Canadians should believe this failure is entirely the responsibility of a government and minister on the job for less than a year.
The Grits may be environmental failures, but the Tories are worse. They're not doing anything. At least that's the impression left by much of last week's coverage.
Except that the Harper government agreed with the other 179 nations in Nairobi to fast-track updating Kyoto. Some countries exempt from the original plan, notably China, argued to delay that as long as possible in an attempt to keep their Kyoto-free status. No "fossils" for them.
Ambrose is working with the Europeans on a green technology fund, and is even talking about linking Canada to the European system of trading pollution credits -- a move which won't make her Miss Congeniality in Alberta or with the climate-change sceptics in her party.
As for Harper himself, on a trip to Asia he did what so many in the media have long called for and placed human rights firmly on the agenda for talks with emerging super-power China. The result? Well, one headline in Canada's self-proclaimed conservative national newspaper, the National Post, sums up the reaction: "Heavy-handed Harper upsets business."
NOW TRADE MATTERS
In a neck-jarring about-face, most media suddenly argue that trade is what really matters in our relations with a country that remains a totalitarian dictatorship. What supreme hypocrisy!
But it's on par with Liberal environmental critic John Godfrey and the various Canadian environmental lobbyists who spent last week dumping on Ambrose, and then had the cheek to complain she'd used an international meeting for "partisan" purposes after she rather demurely alluded to the failures of "previous governments" to do much of anything on Kyoto.
A fair shake from the media? Only if your definition of fair is a kick in the head.
themasta @ Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:28 am
The only bias he has is the truth.
sandorski @ Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:01 pm
Truthfully the Liberals failed with Kyoto and the Conservatives don't deserve the blame for that failure. At the same time though the Conservative "Mad in Canada Solution" is pathetically bad in itself. In fact it's pretty much what the Liberals did. Nothing.
MissT @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:26 am
The folks at the UN climate summit in Nairobi who criticised Ambrose weren't necessarily saying that the Lib's policies were stupendous, it;s that her comments were totally inappropriate and embarassing in an international forum such as the UN.
Whining "It wasn't us, it was the other party's fault!" was not the kind of speech that usually comes from enlightened and visionary countries. It was extraordinarily pathetic, and Canadians present at the UN conference (myself included) were extremely embarrassed.
She failed to mention that the new government has cut 80 per cent of climate funding, including programmes for energy efficient homes, and cut the Liberal government's Green Plan. She also seemed to think that the Alberta Tar sands are some kind of global warming solution. Hmmm. I missed that particular speech, so am unable to explain her unique logic to you, but I'm sure it made perfect sense.
Paul Stanway, (the article's author) seems to think it's just the Canadian media that jumped down Ambrose's throat for no reason. But trust me, one of the major topics for country delegates and NGOs alike attending the UN conference on climate change last week, was how deluded and destructive Rona Ambrose and the Canadians were.
Ambrose's performance has seriously undermined Canada on the international stage. Well done Rona. Asante sana.
BartSimpson @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:52 am
MissT, if the current government were to go in the direction of immediately implementing Kyoto standards on Canada and, more importantly, on Canadian exports that 'critically' affect the climate then here is what they'd do:
Take steps to reduce Canadian CO2 emissions by 40%. Many industries would have to be closed, petrol prices would need to rise by about 70%, and exports of petroleum products would have to be banned to prevent Canada from exporting greenhouse gas-generating products to developing countries.
Is this what you really want?
Delwin @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:08 am
In Ambose's defence, all she has done since she has been minister is axe a bunch of programs and set some way off targets, what else was she going to talk about?
SJ-24 @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:21 pm
MissT, your comment about "She failed to mention that the new government has cut 80 per cent of climate funding, including programmes for energy efficient homes, and cut the Liberal government's Green Plan." is one that shows how out of touch you are with reality.
The program you mentioned was full of holes. As a home designer I am in direct contact with this policies and can tell you that they were all show and no substance. The only thing that the Liberals did right was try and get the provinces to talk to each other about energy issues in building. Where they were going wrong was talking about existing homes and getting them upgraded. As nice as they sounds, people simply don't have the money to upgrade an older home to the new standards. The Conservatives have gone out of their way to promote "Green Home Design". I've not seen this much of a push before. The Provinces are actually getting funding to push these design ideas from who...theConservative government. the Liberals are good at talking the talk, but had no balance for walking the walk.
If you wish for me to yap longer about this false Liberal policy, I can, but it will have to wait for my lunch break. My coffee break is over! 
WindyCity @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:16 pm
The PC have lived up to all expectations. What do you expect from a group that won an election not on the strength of their merrit, skill and expertise but rather capitalizing on the failures of their predecessors? They are not in office because they are the hands down winners and the popular choice they are "miss photogenic"
MissT @ Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:38 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
MissT, if the current government were to go in the direction of immediately implementing Kyoto standards on Canada and, more importantly, on Canadian exports that 'critically' affect the climate then here is what they'd do:
Take steps to reduce Canadian CO2 emissions by 40%. Many industries would have to be closed, petrol prices would need to rise by about 70%, and exports of petroleum products would have to be banned to prevent Canada from exporting greenhouse gas-generating products to developing countries.
Is this what you really want?
Take steps to reduce Canadian CO2 emissions by 40%. Many industries would have to be closed, petrol prices would need to rise by about 70%, and exports of petroleum products would have to be banned to prevent Canada from exporting greenhouse gas-generating products to developing countries.
Is this what you really want?
Look, I don't want the economy to collapse any more than you do. But neither do I want to see climate change extract an even higher price than the problems you outline above. Many at the conference acknowledged that sooner or later (but better sooner) we are going to have to talk about serious emissions reductions. The sooner this is faced up to, the better chance we have of weathering, adapting to, and averting the inevitable difficulties. If we never even get round to talking about it, how are we going to find good solutions?
The "business" argument - that acting on climate change will take too high a toll on industry for us to entertain the thought of real emissions reductions - has been used as an excuse for too long. Not only has this argument placed industrial concerns above all else, but the Stern report put paid to that one too, by emphasising the economic need for urgent action.
MissT @ Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:52 am
SJ-24 SJ-24:
MissT, your comment about "She failed to mention that the new government has cut 80 per cent of climate funding, including programmes for energy efficient homes, and cut the Liberal government's Green Plan." is one that shows how out of touch you are with reality.
The program you mentioned was full of holes. As a home designer I am in direct contact with this policies and can tell you that they were all show and no substance. The only thing that the Liberals did right was try and get the provinces to talk to each other about energy issues in building. Where they were going wrong was talking about existing homes and getting them upgraded. As nice as they sounds, people simply don't have the money to upgrade an older home to the new standards. The Conservatives have gone out of their way to promote "Green Home Design". I've not seen this much of a push before. The Provinces are actually getting funding to push these design ideas from who...theConservative government. the Liberals are good at talking the talk, but had no balance for walking the walk.
If you wish for me to yap longer about this false Liberal policy, I can, but it will have to wait for my lunch break. My coffee break is over!
The program you mentioned was full of holes. As a home designer I am in direct contact with this policies and can tell you that they were all show and no substance. The only thing that the Liberals did right was try and get the provinces to talk to each other about energy issues in building. Where they were going wrong was talking about existing homes and getting them upgraded. As nice as they sounds, people simply don't have the money to upgrade an older home to the new standards. The Conservatives have gone out of their way to promote "Green Home Design". I've not seen this much of a push before. The Provinces are actually getting funding to push these design ideas from who...theConservative government. the Liberals are good at talking the talk, but had no balance for walking the walk.
If you wish for me to yap longer about this false Liberal policy, I can, but it will have to wait for my lunch break. My coffee break is over!
Thanks for that SJ-24, I appreciate the insight, and am glad to hear about the new build initiative. How is that working out in the world of build and architecture? What measures do you think would be needed to really make energy efficiency obligatory in new buildings? (Especially as oil prices are likely to go up over the years.)
I do think though that there could be real programmes on supporting, promoting and subsidising retro-fitting. Just my dream though. Here in the UK, in the area where I live, there are government grants available that will pay for foam injection wall insulation, which you can get if you can prove that you have taken other energy efficiency measures, such as energy-efficient light bulbs, pipe lagging, double glazing, etc, which is pretty cool.
Anyway, I have no love for the Libs, (far too right-wing for me!) so am not defending their policiies. But I still hold with the original criticism of Ambrose for giving a lame-ass speech straight out of kindergarten!
Triple_R @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:02 am
Harper's mistake was that he simply failed to keep on doing what the Liberals were already doing on this issue. The media couldn't critisize him for that - at least not to the point where it would make the Liberals look good in comparison.
The Liberals know full-well that the Kyoto objectives that they signed on to can't be reached through government action with out doing irreperable harm to the economy. They talk the talk, but they INTENTIONALLY DON'T walk the walk because that keeps them in reasonably good standing with the environmentalist lobby groups, but also keeps the economy going reasonably well.
Harper chose to be honest on the matter, and hence his government is anti-Kyoto since the Kyoto targets for Canada can't be reached. That was a big political blunder on his part, I think. Being "anti-Kyoto" is very easily equated as being "anti-environment" in Canada (which is obviously not going to help you in an election), and that's exactly why the Liberals did a *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* support of it, when they had no intention of actually living up to it.
The Liberals are now galvanized over the environmental issue (as we see with the great focus placed on it at their Leadership Convention), and I suspect that they're going to use this issue as a fairly effective wedge issue against Harper.
Harper's only counter to it within the very pro-Kyoto province of Quebec is to delve into Quebec symbolism, and to attempt to shore up the soft federalist vote in Quebec for his party (as he did to a large extent in the last Federal election). This is an astute move by Harper, but it'll prove ineffective if Ignatieff becomes the new Liberal leader, because Ignatieff was supportive of the "Quebec is a nation within an united Canada" motion anyway.
Numure @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:16 am
This is just funny. At least our government (Provincial) went to the conference to show and tell everyone that we are meeting the objectives and plan to keep on with Kyoto no matter what Ottawa does.
ridenrain @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:53 pm
Good luck paying for that.
Maybe France will help you out.
Numure @ Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:49 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
Good luck paying for that.
Maybe France will help you out.
Maybe France will help you out.
We don't have the tar sands, so meeting the objectives is pretty easy.