This is the second Summer now of Conservative rule, and we’re still waiting for any NEW “Made In Canada” action on climate change. I know the speed of government is slow, but it didn’t take TWO SUMMERS to stop funding women’s programs, court challenges, the Community Access Program [Save CAPs], or send more money to Quebec in lieu of the ~$800M promised to Saskatchewan on equalization. It’s obvious where the priorities of this New government are, and they are not focused on ensuring you can breathe, or have a livable home with reliable food supply in the coming years.
Not surprisingly, the western oilsands have been given a sneaky exemption from the latest so-called Tory Green Plan’s emission reductions. And just like the Liberals, the Conservatives have exempted the auto industry in Ontario from emission standards that would make Canadian vehicles something to be proud of again. We’re hurting our own product’s exportability (an area of the economy we’ve based most of our large industries upon) by failing to live up to global emission standards.
Canadian Press
May 7, 2007 at 7:10 PM EDT
Ottawa — The federal government’s new clean air plan will exempt Alberta’s oil sands — alone among all sectors of heavy industry in Canada — from a requirement to cut emissions of two smog-causing pollutants.
And that has environmentalists issuing a pollution warning.
An Environment Canada document provided to non-government groups last week projects a 60 per cent rise in emissions of volatile organic compounds from the oil sands by 2015, and a 5 per cent increase in nitrous oxides emissions over the same period.
Volatile organics and nitrous oxides cause smog when mixed in sunlight.
“Every other sector has reductions,” said Emilie Moorhouse, executive director of the Sierra Club. “Albertans’ air quality is going to suffer because of this.”
==
On another note, but not entirely, Elizabeth May responds to the bogus accusations made against her by some of the other parties, and even those in the media who have bought the misrepresentation of fact found on particular blogs and forums with a heavy NDP leaning.
==
I don’t normally think governments being “edgy” is something that works (See Saskatchewan!), but telling kids to Flick Off is undeniably clever. It’s the type of marketing that has legs and appeals to the children hardest to reach through the media, because it’s a slogan kids can talk about together online, or even in front of adults and feel they are being rebellious (while they are actually spreading a government message that is important for energy conservation purposes).
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Richard Evans | 08-May-07 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
“…failing to live up to global emission standards….”
Ok amigo… hows about you cite those “global emission standards” instead of an article by the Green Party that cites unreferenced “global emission standards”… Please, show the group the standards you’re discussing…
Rosie | 08-May-07 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
hey thanks for the link on Elizabeth May. I needed my faith in her restored after those wacky jesus comments!
Rosie | 08-May-07 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
I am unsure of global emmissions standards, but Canada is behind the US at least in car emmissions standards. Definitely behind most western European countries.
Richard Evans | 08-May-07 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
Rosie said;
“I am unsure of global emmissions standards, but Canada is behind the US at least in car emmissions standards. Definitely behind most western European countries.”
Ok, So you don’t have a clue about global emission standards but somehow you think Canada’s lagging behind… Are you some kind of clairvoyant? Care to provide some stats to back your premonitions?
Rosie | 08-May-07 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
ok, you got me. The reason I said that is we are looking at jobs in the States and we were told our car would not pass emission standards down there and we would have to sell it.
So, according to this Pew report, Canada lags behind Australia, CHINA, Japan, and Europe. Sorry, I was completely out of line and off base with my assumption that the US could possibly have better pollution controls than we do.
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Fuel%20Economy%20and%20GHG%20Standards%5F010605%5F110719%2Epdf
That is a link for a paper on automobile fuel emission standards for vehicles. It is posted on a stop global warming site, so of course its completely biased and has no grounds for truth at all. Thats just my clairvoyancy predicting your reaction to the possibility that other countries have more stringent standards and are not suffering complete economic collapse.
Richard Evans | 08-May-07 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
Rosie said:
“It is posted on a stop global warming site, so of course its completely biased and has no grounds for truth at all. Thats just my clairvoyancy predicting your reaction to the possibility that other countries have more stringent standards and are not suffering complete economic collapse.”
A smart person would stop driving the nail once they realize they’re going into their own coffin… Got any unbiased information???
Rosie | 08-May-07 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
You insinuating I’m not smart?
I certainly don’t believe that this report is biased. Its no secret that we are among the largest consumers in the world and have one of the largest ecological footprints.
You give me some unbiased information about Canada’s leadership on environmental stewardship-and fuel efficiency standards, which is what I argued. And quoting the Western Standard doesn’t count. I would like to see proof that I’m wrong and this report is completely off base.
Certainly this gnu govt is doing no better than those dirty liberals.
Saskboy | 08-May-07 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
Richard, some simple searching on “emission limit” turns up standards around the world
http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-59859.html
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/euro-5-emissions-standards-cars/article-133325
which Canada certainly would have trouble meeting. Charles Adler said as much in his interview with Buzz Hargrove the other week. Are you saying Adler and Buzz have their facts wrong?
Saskboy | 08-May-07 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
In fact, where I’m from (Saskatchewan) many vehicles here would not pass emission standards in other parts of the country (say Ontario).
Scott Tribe | 08-May-07 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
Richard has come out from the woodwork, I see. A shame.
Saskboy | 08-May-07 at 11:10 pm | Permalink
Highlights from the Pew:
Executive Summary
Nine major regions around the world have implemented or proposed various fuel economy and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emission standards. Yet these standards are not easily comparable, due to differences in policy
approaches, test drive cycles, and units of measurement. This paper develops a methodology to compare these
programs to better understand their relative stringency. The results are summarized by Figure ES. Key findings from
the report include:
¤ The European Union (EU) and Japan have the most stringent standards in the world.
¤ The fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission performance of the U.S. cars and light trucks—both historically
and projected based on current policies—lags behind most other nations. The United States and Canada have the
lowest standards in terms of fleet-average fuel economy rating, and they have the highest greenhouse gas
emission rates based on the EU testing procedure.
¤ The new Chinese standards are more stringent than those in Australia, Canada, California, and the United States,
but they are less stringent than those in the European Union and Japan.
¤ If the California GHG standards go into effect, they would narrow the gap between U.S. and EU standards, but the
California standards would still be less stringent than the EU standards.
Rosie | 08-May-07 at 11:17 pm | Permalink
no, Richard makes valid points. There should be more facts out there. Unfortunately, the ones who do the research are the ones who believe in their causes-which one can misconstrue as being biased even if what they find is true. Why would the gnu govt want to find out how much they suck by actually researching where we stand on a world stage for pollution? It would just be biased anyway. The climate change issue will always be about bias and whose side you’re on. GHG aside, our pollution laws aren’t much better and we are appeasing big oil by not having them abide by the same rules the smaller guys have to abide by. Its welfare for the rich. Drink up.
Blackstar | 08-May-07 at 11:20 pm | Permalink
Just watched the National with Peter Mansbridge - they had a piece about our government’s plans to change pesticide limits to, get this, be more in line with American’s, who have looser laws.
I am 100% opposed. I hope that the progressive bloggers will start their hollering on this asap. First of all, I want less crap on my food and in it, for that matter, not more. Second, if we are heading in the US’s direction on food safety laws and environmental safeguards, that is a slipperly slope Canadians should want nothing to do with. According to reading I have done, courtesy of RFK Jr, who has written about Bush’s pathetic loosening of these types of regulations, the standards have dropped considerably in the last seven years. In fact, Bush has so stacked the EPA etc. with cronies(think Katrina and FEMA) that I would give serious scepticism to so-called reports that our GHG levels have been worse than theirs. But that’s a subject for another comment.
I have saved two articles by RFK Jr, but he also has a book on this subject and after you at least read the following two articles, I am sure you will be as sickened as I am over this report that our gov’t intends to follow suit.
Crimes Against Nature
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-01.htm
We Must Take America Back
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091705Z.shtml
Saskboy | 08-May-07 at 11:52 pm | Permalink
I too would like to see better comparisons of different automobiles from all continents, so the consumer knows what auto industries are lagging behind in both fuel economy and emission standards. It’s safe to say though that Canadian emissions are not as good as most of the world’s limits, and that’s a real shame since we should be demanding the best from our automakers.
Blackstar, the Green Party line anyway on Canadian versus US emissions is that although Canada has a worse “per capita” GHG production value, we actually put out fewer GHGs than the USA, and our increase in emissions may not even be as great (but I don’t remember if that last part is accurate, I’d have to listen to an interview with May I have on my computer to find out for sure). So while that may sound like a defense of Canada’s bad record on GHG production, it’s actually a handy bit of information to stonewall the spinners out there who try to chide us for lagging behind the USA, as if the Americans are some kind of pollution model for the world.
Saskboy | 09-May-07 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0967577820070509
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
BONN, Germany (Reuters) - U.S. and Russian greenhouse gas emissions rose in 2005, more than cancelling out a dip in the European Union’s emissions despite growing calls to limit global warming, official data shows.
Combined emissions by the United States, Russia and the EU, accounting for about half the world total, rose by 0.4 percent to 14.55 billion tonnes in 2005 from 2004, according to data compiled by Reuters from the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat.
“Emissions trends are continuing upwards, which contradicts political rhetoric globally,” Bill Hare, a Greenpeace adviser who also works at German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said during 166-nation U.N. climate talks in Bonn.
And experts say that emissions by developing nations led by China and India, which do not have to report 2005 data to the Bonn-based Secretariat, are rising far faster as they use more coal and oil to power their fast-growing economies.
more…