What’s their dirty little secret? Why are there so many Conservative bloggers swallowing the lie that our environment can handle everything the oil driven economy can throw at it? There’s plenty we can do, but we have to stop people from wanting to attack energy saving policies.
The language real scientists use is not going to get any more strong than “unequivocal” when they talk about the evidence that humans can affect the climate with pollution. The climate change deniers can come up with all of the clever “Y2Kyoto” mocking buzz words they want, it won’t help Canada’s air quality, economy, or temperature. The language Prime Minister Harper uses is very worrying.
“The time for talking about this and studying it in Canada is over. We have to get acting,” Baird said, adding he would soon be meeting with other world ministers in Paris to discuss how Canada “can play catch-up” in reducing emissions.
“The planet’s future is at stake,” Baird told CBC News. “[Global warming] is a fact and it requires real action.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed the issue in Ottawa, saying “these changes are occurring, they’re serious and we must act.”
Harper, speaking at a press conference on spinal-cord research, said the problem is “enormous” and will require a long-term plan.
“I think the first … realistic step in any such plan would be to try over the next few years to stabilize emissions. Obviously over the longer term to reduce them, but as I said before, realistically, the only way to get … reductions is to develop technologies,” Harper said.
Baird acknowledged that the consequences may be particularly dire in Canada, where temperature increases are expected to be higher in the next century than in most parts of the world.
OK, I like Baird’s talk in that quote, it’s as if he accepts that he has to take action. Harper on the other hand throws a caveat into his sentence about us reducing pollution. Why does he qualify the reduction of a bad with the condition that we “develop” new goods first? There are thousands of technologies ready today, and have been around for a decade or more, that are ripe for installation both at home and for industry to use.
You wouldn’t hear Harper talking about eliminating pollution in the same way you’ve heard him talk about eliminating free criminals, would you? Can you imagine, ‘We have to stabilize crime before we can reduce it. And realistically, first we need to build more jails before we bother making reductions.’ If the Prime Minster were talking about crime, which is an obvious bad generated by people, then he’d get tough on it:
“We are going to hold criminals to account,” Harper. “This government will send a strong message to criminals: if you do a serious crime, you’re going to start doing serious time.”
In his speech, Harper said he would reinvest the savings from abolishing the registry toward the hiring of more police officers.
Why can’t we get that kind of conviction from Harper on the most important issue of our time? He’s doing a dangerous dance with words and thought if he misleads Canadians by claiming we need to “stabilize” pollution levels. Pollution levels are not stable now, because they are increasing. “Stabilize” means what to HArper? Reduce them so they don’t keep growing is what average Canadians would assume. But does he maybe mean the worst thing possible, which is to “stably grow pollution”, because growth can be “stable” too, remember?
Canada can reinvest the health and clean-up savings realized from creating new industries and service jobs, into the people affected by a pull back from the oil sands, and other unrestrained resource consumption sites. For instance, calculate the cost to Saskatoon and Prince Albert if there was no Saskatchewan River, and re-invest that saved money, by saving that river from being drained.
Will Saskatoon’s beautiful South Saskatchewan River be South Saskatchewan Creek in a couple decades?
Denman said rivers in Alberta and Saskatchewan are usually filled with glacial melt in the summers, but “with much less glaciers and earlier melting, you might expect those rivers to be much lower, [resulting in] less water for irrigation when it’s needed.”
==
In reference to Syncrude, and other Alberta oil companies, Ralph Klein said on Adler today, “These companies know what is right for them.” The smart people at those companies will decide when their production increases come to an end, and they can’t pump out any more due to “infrastructure issues“.
After Adler read Ralph the report tabled for the UN, the former AB Tory leader replied. “Dont’ blame India, don’t blame China, just blame the oil sands,” Ralph said sarcastically. It’s been so cold lately, “Well I wish we had some Global Warming here.”
If I didn’t know already that Ralph is a conservative blowhard, I’d be even more worked up over his replies. It’s not that people like the Liberals think that Syncrude doesn’t know HOW to deal with the pollution they create, it’s that they WON’T deal with it instead of selling more oil at the cost of the environment. The only downside Syncrude faces if it drains the land of oil and water, is that it may face a lawsuit from future governments. But large corporations have plenty of experience in hiding/spending their assets so that even later they won’t pay the true cost of extracting the resource they make piles of money from.
It’s an admission of GUILT for Ralph to try to refocus the Global Warming blame game on India and China instead of what he could, and can directly influence here in Canada. If three boys are caught peeing in a pool, what would you do to the boy named Canada if he tried to blame the urine on the other two boys?
Fox in charge of the hen house is too worn out to be used in a witty charge against ignorant, selfish, blowhards like Ralph Klein when they defend the industry as self regulating for the good of all Canadians. I wish I could think of something more apt that would make Conservatives stop and think for even a moment. Something maybe about how you wouldn’t expect Young Offenders to self-regulate how many cars they break into to rob, you’d toss them into the clink. Sure they could make money another way, and they’d hurt fewer people in the long run by finding a job that doesn’t create more work and hardship for everyone else, but it’s just so gosh darn profitable to exploit the resource that is sitting right there in front of you. It’s especially sweet when the government just slaps you on the wrist for doing it, or better yet, wags its finger at you while telling you to not do it too much.
==
People have ideas, the Conservatives should start using them.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
red butler | 02-Feb-07 at 9:01 pm | Permalink
Canadians are tiring very quickly of HarperCon’s talk-talk and no actio-action on the environment, his attempts to pretend that he cares about more than oil stock profits are so far laughable - Canadians are NOT BUYING IT! Polls show it over and over again. His days are numbered. His socalled action n global warming is CRIMINAL NEGLECT!
Toedancer | 02-Feb-07 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
Everytime Baird opens his huge mouth he simply emits more and more Co2. It’s disgusting!
Dodos | 03-Feb-07 at 9:53 am | Permalink
I think it’s going to be an interesting few weeks. Talk is cheap - can the CPC move beyond talk and put some legislation behind it? Will Canadians start to do the little things we need to do?
As for why people continue to think it won’t be a big deal, well, I think it just comes down to their need to re-assure themselves that everything is OK and that we aren’t screwing the planet, and our society, up that bad.
talk talk talk | 03-Feb-07 at 10:32 am | Permalink
The latest thing the foot-draggers are saying is that Canada contributes only 1-2% towards climate change so even if we shut down every industry, every car, every furnace, we’d make no dent on the climate change. The only reason Harper is finally taking a step towards action is because he has a minority government. On the other hand, I read in Maclean’s that Baird is far more eco-conscious than I ever could’ve imagined, after seeing years of his bombast here in Ontario. He’s even a vegetarian! So maybe Harper-come-lately will really do something. Maybe.
jlr | 03-Feb-07 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
I agree that Harper’s approach stinks. This is the sort of issue the people of the world should be approaching seriously, like a war effort. If people could mobilise to put in the changes needed now, we could maybe relax a bit later and concentrate on adapting (picture having to relocate prairie cities north where there’s actually enough water).
One thing that could be done right away is to get read about building codes and stop these flimsy houses going up, relying on cheap energy to keep them warm. That energy’s getting more expensive every time we face more impacts from climate change.
Anyways, I think there needs to be a lot more pressure on our government to act. Talking about “carbon intensity” without clear cuts is a joke. This is a serious problem and it’s not going to go away. You can’t just patch it up and hope that wins you the next election. Although considering the reluctance of most individuals to make any lifestyle changes, it’s hard to imagine anyone’s even listening closely enough.
And as for how big a part of the problem Canada really is, what a cowardly argument. Every time a country refuses to act on this issue, it gives other countries the license to do nothing. Pretty soon, we’re all doing a whole lot of nothing. It’s disgusting. Nobody wants to rain on anyone’s parade, but just imagine the potential suffering and how difficult it’s going to be to adapt, if we can adapt (on the upper end of the temperature change spectrum).
Does anyone else find this situation increasingly depressing? The U.S. administration is doing pretty much nothing, our government is following suit, Australia and China are respectively acting nonchalant and trying to ignore the report in the media. It’s difficult to even feel angry anymore (despite my above post). I find it interesting if you go to certain news portals, there’s more information about wars in the middle east and the IPCC report isn’t even front page news anymore, yet one has pretty much no effect on the majority of individuals across the world, while the other has global and historic implications.
JimBobby | 03-Feb-07 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
“Does anyone else find this situation increasingly depressing?”
I been ’round fer close t’ 60 years. I started gettin’ eco-conscious back in the hippie sixties an’ I stayed that way. Ol’ Mother Earth’s takin’ a beatin’ like never before, yer right ’bout that, but I ain’t never seen a time when so many folks was worried ’bout green stuff.
The IPCC report an’ the bigass money guys at Davos backin’ climate change action an’ now even King Steve’s talkin’ the talk. The Green Party’s pollin’ at 11% an’ folks is linin’ up t’ buy hybrids an’ compact fluorescent light bulbs an’ everybuddy’s tryin’ t’ be greener than every other buddy.
I ain’t depressed. I’m encouraged by the serious way people an’ biznesses an’ gummints is takin’ Mother Earth issues. It’s out in front like I ain’t seen in 40 years.
JimBobby
jlr | 04-Feb-07 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
Well, you’re right that it seems to be picking up steam, but compared to the level of consciousness in Europe (I just talked to a German friend about the media coverage there yesterday), North America has a long ways to go. Although my personal black cloud seems to be lifting, so here’s hoping there’s a real groundswell that pushes the foot-draggers.
I came across this as well, someone else challenging Harper’s comments:
http://www.noghgday.com/
MarkyMark | 05-Feb-07 at 2:59 pm | Permalink
It seems that some experts in fact dispute the notion that global warming is occurring at all, and point out that 30 years ago the concern was that global cooling was taking place:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Saskboy | 05-Feb-07 at 3:21 pm | Permalink
MarkyMark, your URL on your name doesn’t work.
As for the other link, I doubt the veracity of any website with Fastclick adware/spyare ads coating it, and one with exploding WTC towers at the top in a tasteless ad. The partisan bias is coating CFP’s pages; I’d put as much stock in the “experts” there as I would in physicians 30 years ago who thought ulcers couldn’t be cured. Science learns from past mistakes, that’s the point of the scientific method - to develop better models to predict the outcome of measured experiments. If you’re going to dredge up mistakes from a generation ago, why not bring up that scientists once thought the sun orbited the earth?
Please get past the notion that scientists are trying to cause calamity and hardship, and instead realize that some businesses with a lot more influence than you or I have, are trying to hold back progress that could force them to innovate and generate new products and distribution models.
MarkyMark | 05-Feb-07 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
oops-fixed the link.
I cam across the link somewhere else-now I don’t remember whether it was the Toronto Star or the Drudge Report…just checked-’twas the latter.
I don’t know anything about the topic but a guy I run with is convinced that it isn’t at all clear the global warming is occurring. He’s also against the cholesterol theory of heart disease and the science around what we currently think on that topic.
I agree that there are many with a stake in the status quo, but am interested in what has been scientifically proven and what is as of yet unproven but more in the political realm.
Saskboy | 05-Feb-07 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
Drudge is famous for his right wing bias, and unfortunately both the American and Canadian right wing politicos tend to favour leaving our economy in the same state that currently brought us to the dangerous pollution levels we’re at. I understand that it’s increasingly frustrating and difficult to find a “scientifically” proven fact, and that’s not just because the science is difficult, and not easily tested. There are campaigns afoot to conceal the true risks of climate change, some paid for by oil companies. The CBC documentary The Denial Machine [viewable online with highspeed internet] outlines how the campaign to make smoking safe a generation ago, is now being redirected into denying climate change. That’s scary stuff, and you won’t find people denying that campaign is underway, they’ll instead try to deflect and claim it’s because there’s a “campaign by other sides to ruin their profits.”
I look at things this way. What’s worse, a slowed oil-based economy, with more jobs created in eco-technology, or the alternative of pollution as usual with the end result of resource shortages and poor air quality? Even if CO2 and other GHGasses don’t change the climate, it’s undeniable they impact upon the air we breathe. There are figures for how many people are dying each year in Ontario due to what doctors estimate as air quality health problems, and the number is increasing. Anyone who isn’t blind can see the smog in our cities. Anyone [a scientist, or you, or I] can pump GHG into an enclosed environment, and compare the temperature rise to the same environment without the GHG affecting it. I reason that the same effect in a greenhouse, can occur on the entire earth.