Canada drops the ball on global warming - Gore says Canada is a Fraud

[General Apathy]

Al Gore condemned Canada's new plan to reduce greenhouse gases, saying it was "a complete and total fraud" because it lacks specifics and gives industry a way to actually increase emissions.

Under the initiative announced Thursday, Canada aims to reduce the current level of greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. But the government acknowledged it would not meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, which requires 35 industrialized countries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The country's emissions are now 30 percent above 1990 levels.

The conservative government's strategy focuses both on reducing emissions of gases blamed for global warming and improving air quality. But the plan failed to spell out what many of its regulations will look like.

[Griffin 6]

Gore calling someone else's environmental efforts a fraud ... insert ironic smiley thing.

[SamTheEagle]

Canada Responds!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070428...12VgjDRn4DW7oF

Gore blasts Canada's greenhouse-gas plan Sat Apr 28, 7:48 PM ET

MONTREAL (AFP) - Environmental crusader and former US vice president Al Gore on Saturday accused the Canadian government of preparing a fraudulent emissions cutback plan, drawing a sharp response from Ottawa.

In Toronto to present his global-warming film "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore sharply criticized the new strategy unveiled Thursday by the Canadian environment minister, John Baird.

The strategy aims to cut greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming by 150 megatonnes, or 20 percent, by 2020.

However, the cutbacks would be based on emission levels in 2006, rather than 1990, the reference year for the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations pact ratified by 168 countries, including Canada, and aimed at reducing the emissions.

The United States is among those states which have not ratified it.

Gore criticized Canada's plan for lacking defined targets for emission reductions.

"I'm hearing that a reduction in intensity is going to be presented to the Canadian people as a legitimate policy. In my opinion it is a complete and total fraud. It is designed to mislead the Canadian people," Gore said.

Nevertheless, he admitted he had "no right to interfere in your decisions."

In a strongly worded statement, Baird said it was "regrettable that the former US vice president decided to speak out without ever having been briefed on the contents of our plan."

"It is difficult to accept criticism from someone who preaches about climate change, but who never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to a vote in the United States Senate," the environment minister said.

"The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member," he said.

"I am ready to meet with Mr. Gore at any time to discuss the climate change threat and our government's tough plan to reduce Canada's emissions."

Baird, in announcing the plan Thursday, said the Kyoto targets which were agreed by a previous Liberal government in 1998 and ratified in 2002 were unattainable.

Canada had agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but emissions have instead increased by 35 percent.

[Pseudolus]

I have the solution: http://freecarbonoffsets.com/home.do

[Harry]

Originally Posted by SamTheEagle

Canada Responds!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070428...12VgjDRn4DW7oF

Gore blasts Canada's greenhouse-gas plan Sat Apr 28, 7:48 PM ET

I agree. It's funny that Canada signed a treaty and is now not living up to its obligations, yet they are trying to pass it off as though they are.

[NoName]

Originally Posted by Harry

I agree. It's funny that Canada signed a treaty and is now not living up to its obligations, yet they are trying to pass it off as though they are.

No ... that's what the previous Canadian government was doing. The current government is trying for a bit more honesty.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by NoName

No ... that's what the previous Canadian government was doing. The current government is trying for a bit more honesty.

Honesty would be withdrawing from the treaty.

[Paul Brand]

I think Gore's rhetoric is over the top. I think the Conservatives are doing more than many expected them to do. Attaining Kyoto targets by 2012, is not remotely feasible (which would involve >30% reduction in current total emissions).

We're too late for Kyoto. However, I think the Canadian government is starting to move in the right direction. I think emissions standards should be tougher. Now, if the Conservatives were a majority, I'm not sure this all would have happened. Sometimes, minority Parliaments have their advantages. On the other hand, the Opposition is certainly trying to capitalize on the fact that we aren't projecting to hit Kyoto targets, and are trying to force the government to do. Legislation passed a few months ago by the Opposition parties requiring the government to meet Kyoto targets, without specifying how to achieve them, or allocating money to make those achievements. I think this is dumb politics. But, in the end, the Opposition parties are going to need to have a plan before going to the polls. I could see myself voting for one of three parties right now (i.e. not NDP or BQ).

[Double High C]

Originally Posted by Paul Brand

I could see myself voting for one of three parties right now (i.e. not NDP or BQ).

Lib, Cons, or - what's the name of that Perot-like party?

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by Double High C

Lib, Cons, or - what's the name of that Perot-like party?

I'm not sure there is a Perot like party, unles you were thinking of the old Reform Party, or later the Canadian Alliance, which later merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative Party.

I was actually thinking the Green Party. The leader (and former leader) is a former Conservative Party member, and I think they might have some sense of fiscal prudence, and I don't get the sense that they are all animal rights activists. Then again, they were in favor of banning the annual seal hunt, which I'm not necessarily against, as long as the practice is sustainable in terms of maintaining a reasonable seal population.

To be honest, I will someday have to take a close look at their policy platforms to make a decision. It isn't easy sorting through the vacuous political rhetoric I experience with just about everyone.