Screwing the Environment...or not?
SamIAm @ Wed May 10, 2006 10:58 am
Lets be clear about something. the Liberals signed the Koyoto Accord without even having a clue what they were getting themselves into. the costs of doing this were so high that it was almost foolish to think we could do it without spending even more money then we had. In other words, we would be back in the glory hole again.
The Conservatives have had a great deal of time to look this accord over and what they saw made them scratch their collective heads and wonder what kind of shit the Liberals where smoking. If they had followed the plan Canada would be back into econimic hard times again and we all knew that is not something we all want. The idea of government is to balance everything to try and make at least 51% of the people somewhat happy.
So when I read shit like this story below, I think to myself. Fuck the environmental movement because they don't know shit:
Environmentalists demand Ambrose resign
OTTAWA (CP) - Environmental groups are calling on Environment Minister Rona Ambrose to resign as chair of UN negotiations on extending the Kyoto Protocol, saying Canada has effectively abandoned the climate treaty.
John Bennett of the Climate Action Network said the new Conservative government has gutted the country's Kyoto plan and should not pretend it is still part of the treaty process. The network is one of six national groups asking for Ambrose to resign.
Ambrose has said Canada will not opt out of the treaty, but she has been highly critical of it, saying its targets are impossible to meet.
Representatives of more than 160 countries meet in Bonn this month with the aim of extending the treaty beyond its current expiry of 2012 and implementing even deeper cuts in greenhouse emissions.
Under the UN system, the Canadian environment minister is chair of the talks this year.
No one is saying that the Conservatives are dumping the plan. what they are saying is that the Liberals signed a document without reading it and understanding the deep impact it would have on Canada's economy. Which is no surprise since at the time the Liberals were deeply involved in scamming money from our taxes to pay for golf courses and sham marketing contracts....And the Liberals want us to trust them again? Fat chance that will happen! 
ridenrain @ Wed May 10, 2006 11:14 am
What the Liberals were smoking was Maurice Strong.
They guys a dirtbag and swidler on a global scale.
Interview
PluggyRug @ Wed May 10, 2006 11:46 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
What the Liberals were smoking was Maurice Strong.
They guys a dirtbag and swidler on a global scale.
Interview
They guys a dirtbag and swidler on a global scale.
Interview
Can you paste the article?
ridenrain @ Wed May 10, 2006 12:20 pm
$1:
Question Period: Maurice Strong
Born April 29, 1929, Oak Lake, Man. Chairman, technology and environmental advisory board, Visionary Vehicles. Environmental adviser to the Chinese government. Former adviser to the UN secretary-general. Special UN envoy to North Korea. Under-secretary-general of the United Nations. Member of Canada's Privy Council. Chairman of Earth Council. Co-founder and honourary director, Canada China Business Council. Chair of the council, UN University of Peace. President of Ontario Hydro, Petro-Canada and Power Corp. Apprentice fur trader with Hudson's Bay Company.
Western Standard: You're considered the father of the Kyoto Protocol. How do you respond to those who say that it is based on bad science, and does little to address real air quality problems?
Maurice Strong: I know critics say that there isn't scientific evidence, but there is far more scientific consensus on this issue than there is on almost every other issue on which people make decisions every day. The oil and gas industry, which I was involved in for years, every day they use the best scientific knowledge available to make their decisions. But the best scientific knowledge available is not always perfect, and that's why they have to drill several wells to have one discovery. But if they waited to do what many of the critics say about climate change, that you wait until the evidence is absolute, then they'd never drill any wells.
Whether Kyoto is alive or not, the climate change issue is not going to go away. Kyoto didn't create the issue. Kyoto was a response to the issue. And if Kyoto were to go away--and certainly its influence has been significantly diminished--that doesn't mean the climate change issue is going to go away.
WS: How do you feel about the fact that Kyoto will economically benefit heavy-polluting developing economies, such as China, while punishing their cleaner, global competitors in the West?
MS: 'Punish' is not the word. The biggest offenders are obviously the ones that have to make the first adjustments. China is a party to the climate change convention. Those who say it is exempted are wrong. It is exempted from the first set of targets. But . . . China's per capita emissions are very low compared to the emissions of Canada and the U.S. and others. So the whole basis of the convention was that the countries that have given rise to the issue and have benefited economically from it are the ones who should take the lead.
WS: You have said that Canada has lost its moral leadership on environmental issues. Why is that?
MS: Over many years, Canada's earned a place in the world out of proportion to our economic and political strength. We've done that because we've basically been in the vanguard of some of the more positive changes--not that everybody agrees that they're positive, but that the world regards as reasonably positive: peacekeeping, climate change, the environment, that's some of them. But, in fact, now people are looking behind our good guy image and looking at what is happening, and we're actually--we do some good things, I'm not trying to suggest it's all bad--but overall we have lost the basis for leadership. I mean, our environmental record is, frankly, in recent years, very poor.
WS: What about the leadership of the U.S.?
MS: I've spent a great deal of time in the United States. I'm very pro-American. But I have differences with the U.S. on policy, but not any more than a lot of the U.S. people have differences. I would love to see America return to the kind of moral leadership that it has exerted over the years, and which has provided the world with such a model of how a real value-oriented democracy should work. What the sad thing about the existing situation is, that America has lost much of the basis for moral leadership which was the great source of its strength over the years. I don't think it has lost it irrevocably, but it certainly lost a huge amount of the support that's necessary for leadership. I mean, coercive leadership isn't very durable. Leadership requires being able to bring people along with you. And I think the U.S. realizes that. And the U.S. government, strong as it is, has gone through a learning experience. And I think it's learned that it's in the U.S.'s interests not to go it alone, because it has to bear all the costs and consequences; whereas, if it brings other people along, it is able to be far more effective, and the world leader. I mean, if the U.S. isn't going to be the world leader, who is?
Born April 29, 1929, Oak Lake, Man. Chairman, technology and environmental advisory board, Visionary Vehicles. Environmental adviser to the Chinese government. Former adviser to the UN secretary-general. Special UN envoy to North Korea. Under-secretary-general of the United Nations. Member of Canada's Privy Council. Chairman of Earth Council. Co-founder and honourary director, Canada China Business Council. Chair of the council, UN University of Peace. President of Ontario Hydro, Petro-Canada and Power Corp. Apprentice fur trader with Hudson's Bay Company.
Western Standard: You're considered the father of the Kyoto Protocol. How do you respond to those who say that it is based on bad science, and does little to address real air quality problems?
Maurice Strong: I know critics say that there isn't scientific evidence, but there is far more scientific consensus on this issue than there is on almost every other issue on which people make decisions every day. The oil and gas industry, which I was involved in for years, every day they use the best scientific knowledge available to make their decisions. But the best scientific knowledge available is not always perfect, and that's why they have to drill several wells to have one discovery. But if they waited to do what many of the critics say about climate change, that you wait until the evidence is absolute, then they'd never drill any wells.
Whether Kyoto is alive or not, the climate change issue is not going to go away. Kyoto didn't create the issue. Kyoto was a response to the issue. And if Kyoto were to go away--and certainly its influence has been significantly diminished--that doesn't mean the climate change issue is going to go away.
WS: How do you feel about the fact that Kyoto will economically benefit heavy-polluting developing economies, such as China, while punishing their cleaner, global competitors in the West?
MS: 'Punish' is not the word. The biggest offenders are obviously the ones that have to make the first adjustments. China is a party to the climate change convention. Those who say it is exempted are wrong. It is exempted from the first set of targets. But . . . China's per capita emissions are very low compared to the emissions of Canada and the U.S. and others. So the whole basis of the convention was that the countries that have given rise to the issue and have benefited economically from it are the ones who should take the lead.
WS: You have said that Canada has lost its moral leadership on environmental issues. Why is that?
MS: Over many years, Canada's earned a place in the world out of proportion to our economic and political strength. We've done that because we've basically been in the vanguard of some of the more positive changes--not that everybody agrees that they're positive, but that the world regards as reasonably positive: peacekeeping, climate change, the environment, that's some of them. But, in fact, now people are looking behind our good guy image and looking at what is happening, and we're actually--we do some good things, I'm not trying to suggest it's all bad--but overall we have lost the basis for leadership. I mean, our environmental record is, frankly, in recent years, very poor.
WS: What about the leadership of the U.S.?
MS: I've spent a great deal of time in the United States. I'm very pro-American. But I have differences with the U.S. on policy, but not any more than a lot of the U.S. people have differences. I would love to see America return to the kind of moral leadership that it has exerted over the years, and which has provided the world with such a model of how a real value-oriented democracy should work. What the sad thing about the existing situation is, that America has lost much of the basis for moral leadership which was the great source of its strength over the years. I don't think it has lost it irrevocably, but it certainly lost a huge amount of the support that's necessary for leadership. I mean, coercive leadership isn't very durable. Leadership requires being able to bring people along with you. And I think the U.S. realizes that. And the U.S. government, strong as it is, has gone through a learning experience. And I think it's learned that it's in the U.S.'s interests not to go it alone, because it has to bear all the costs and consequences; whereas, if it brings other people along, it is able to be far more effective, and the world leader. I mean, if the U.S. isn't going to be the world leader, who is?
(An interesting side is that Chairman Moe is part of the group that has the Western import rights for Chinese made cars. He also has direct connections to past Liberal leadership)
Indelible @ Wed May 10, 2006 12:25 pm
$1:
The idea of government is to balance everything to try and make at least 51% of the people somewhat happy.
wrong. that is what liberal government does. hence martin "banning" everything to get votes.
ideally, regardless of what party forms the government, regardless of whether the party is "left" or "right" the purpose of the government is to carry out the will of the people. that's what democracy is all about.
unfortunately that is definitely not the case, even with our current government as well as previous ones.
Banff @ Wed May 10, 2006 12:52 pm
We must always remain vigilant in protecting our environment but not to the point where we are unable to do anything more than step out of our doors and breathe the fresh air .
There are so many facets to the environment it has invaded our mear ability to function economicly and socially forinstance lumber is entrapped in so many environmental processes that by the time you get it the cost is sometimes out of reach ... everything has gone that direction and has been so heavily forced upon the public it is the most heavily Saint Lucifer style of Fascist legislation .
The more recently you were born the more likely you are to be environmentaly friendly but even so the cost is going to be a greater burden as the sciences find new ways to apply themselves into economics to earn a living , and many environmental solutions border the lines of useless and very costly and not as effective as many environmentalist like to think .
Banff @ Wed May 10, 2006 2:02 pm
...one would think that the sciences which deal with environmental issues adhere to the growing complications of keeping the environment healthy but are so invasive but they are nothing more than trendy fads which get shoved aside whenever a new initiative or plan comes along .
Indelible @ Wed May 10, 2006 2:08 pm
and the thing is that "science" is becoming polarized along politica lines of left and right. that is stupid. science is facts, the undeniable truth. i guess that's not true anymore
Banff @ Wed May 10, 2006 4:46 pm
Indelible Indelible:
and the thing is that "science" is becoming polarized along politica lines of left and right. that is stupid. science is facts, the undeniable truth. i guess that's not true anymore
it is facts but is no more advanced now than the discoveries of electricity or that the world is round . Sciences change so fast and so do the factual results.. we are becoming intricate about being intricate and most results either fail or change but never really advance . A simple change is how OSB and partical board have solved the problem with left over milling but the environmental impact is heavy within the glues used , yet one must school for long periods of time to learn metal and plastic compounds for strength and durabilty whether it be for automobile seat belt mounts or plexy glass ...or the cause and effects of developing new drugs within the feild of medicine . We glorifying the sciences far too heavily to really have it flow at a healthy pace and within all its changes . Most of it has become a cash cow over real necessity or mostly fact . Science is good and so is the increasing knowledge but it all occurs with an ill approach .It has become corrupt and unmanagable to the degree of reason similar to what has made our health care system financially unmanagable to the tax payer. Environmentalist are opportunistic and are just that "mental" and we have "as you say " polarized opportunistic political lines both on the left and right . What cost $5.00 for an acre of forest land for cutting now costs in excess of $25.00 per tree which portions handily slides quietly into the pockets of many in the name of environmental protection . The same applys to global warming .Guilt and fear are profitable businesses regarding Kyoto