Trudeau Liberals and the Environment

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

Trevormkidd wrote:
Trudeau has a better chance of teaching chickens to speak both official languages then he has of achieving the medium term targets in the Climate Change Accountability Act.  It was irresponsible when he voted for it in the past.  Just cheap political pandering.  The same goes for Mulcair, Layton and the NDP.

With the Act in 2010 the medium term target was 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.  As emissions had increased in the intervening years it would have required an average decrease of 3.6% per year for 10 years.

Currently with the changes in the act the medium term target is now 34% below 1990 levels by 2025.  An average decrease of 4.5% per year for 10 years.

You do realize that even though they had no representation in Parliament, that the Green Party and Elizabeth May were in support of the Climate Change Accountability Act (assuming you're still a Green supporter)?

Trevormkidd

Aristotleded24 wrote:
You do realize that even though they had no representation in Parliament, that the Green Party and Elizabeth May were in support of the Climate Change Accountability Act (assuming you're still a Green supporter)?

Yes, the same goes for May and the Greens.

As for my support for the Greens.  I supported them when I felt that they cared enough about the environment that they would be able to accept science and reality when it slammed up against their ideology.  I was wrong, and my support for them probably ended about 7 years ago.  In my local riding, I campaigned for pro-science NDP candidate in the last provincial election.  In the last federal election, neither the local NDP candidate or the federal party itself, had any chance of getting my vote due to their anti-science positions.

 

 

Aristotleded24

Trevormkidd wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
You do realize that even though they had no representation in Parliament, that the Green Party and Elizabeth May were in support of the Climate Change Accountability Act (assuming you're still a Green supporter)?

Yes, the same goes for May and the Greens.

As for my support for the Greens.  I supported them when I felt that they cared enough about the environment that they would be able to accept science and reality when it slammed up against their ideology.  I was wrong, and my support for them probably ended about 7 years ago.  In my local riding, I campaigned for pro-science NDP candidate in the last provincial election.  In the last federal election, neither the local NDP candidate or the federal party itself, had any chance of getting my vote due to their anti-science positions.

Ah yes, you're the authority on all things science, and anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is "ideological" and "anti-science."

Welcome back, Trevor. It's been a while.

Trevormkidd

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Ah yes, you're the authority on all things science, and anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is "ideological" and "anti-science."

I don't consider myself to be any such authority.  It is pretty simple though, we have a scientific community full of people with relevant expertse and they evaluate the scientific evidence.  People who are not ideologues accept that sometimes the science doesn't give the answer they would like it to give.  They change their views based on the best evidence.  Ideologues refuse to accept that science sometimes does not conform with their ideology, and so they reject the science.  Climate change deniers find the odd crackpot scientist who they agree with and ignore the scientific community.  People like you find the odd crackpot scientist who you agree with on GMOs and nuclear etc and ignore the scientific community.  There is no difference between the reactionary, anti-enlightenment, anti-science people on either side.  Both cause significant harm.

 

quizzical

epaulo13 wrote:

Former CAPP veep says she doesn’t bring any bias to new Natural Resources job

Janet Annesley doesn’t back down. The new chief of staff to the federal minister of natural resources has taken on everyone from actors Robert Redford and Leonardo DiCaprio, to respected think tanks like Alberta’s Pembina Institute.

The former Shell company executive and vice-president of communications for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ (CAPP) has managed multi-million-dollar campaigns promoting the Alberta tar sands and oil interests.

And in 2011, when the Energy Framework Initiative lobbied the Harper government to cut the red tape on oil mega-projects, CAPP was one of the four groups that pushed for the dismantling of environmental regulations.

She’s sailed with climate-change deniers on Conservative Ezra Levant’s Freedom Cruise.

And now she’s landed a high-profile job at a ministry that will have to make some tough decisions in coming months over hotly-contested projects such as the Energy East and Kinder Morgan pipelines....

sad to hear this but not surprised. those who voted for the lying Liberals need to take note.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

i don't know any of this Sean. i was living on the Sooke Reservation when Chief Planes put in solar on the band hall and homes and i know they're making really good money from reverse selling.

mom is working on a grant for solar panels and stuff for a hall about the same size as the Sooke Band Hall which is the only reason i know the reverse hook up costs. they don't use the hall in summer very much and it gets the whole day's sun and the valley is considered to be semi arid with majority sun in all seasons so the feasibility to do it was good.

she thinks if it works as the studies show then it could be used as a model for other NPO's who own their own buildings in the Basin and the businesses here too.

 

This is the argument that the Hydro people make.

I have been told that the cost of a reverse metre is not that high if the Utility finds one tests and approves it but if they leave it up to the people to bring their own each has to be tested and approved.

I am aware of the cost of renewables also being high when you have a system that cannot store power. There are mechanisms to do this but while the government here in Ontario focuses on fundign renewables they have not invested in the storage of power so when the renewables come on stream they effectively lead to wasting power giving it away to other jurisdictions or idling plants. Our systems are not built to be as efficicent as they can be.

I would like to see an analysis of this -- not because I know the answers but because we don't and we should know.

Certainly it would be great to see FN people be able to produce power and sell it in more places. In some palces combinations of solar and wind can work rather than one or the other as more of the time at least one will function. Add to that hopefully we can have future technology like electric cars that can be charged  with excess energy at times.

Sean in Ottawa

Trevormkidd wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Ah yes, you're the authority on all things science, and anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is "ideological" and "anti-science."

I don't consider myself to be any such authority.  It is pretty simple though, we have a scientific community full of people with relevant expertse and they evaluate the scientific evidence.  People who are not ideologues accept that sometimes the science doesn't give the answer they would like it to give.  They change their views based on the best evidence.  Ideologues refuse to accept that science sometimes does not conform with their ideology, and so they reject the science.  Climate change deniers find the odd crackpot scientist who they agree with and ignore the scientific community.  People like you find the odd crackpot scientist who you agree with on GMOs and nuclear etc and ignore the scientific community.  There is no difference between the reactionary, anti-enlightenment, anti-science people on either side.  Both cause significant harm.

 

I think much of this is true.

And we should remember that while science has got us into the mess we are in (along with overpopulation) since also offers the best chances of mitigating.

When it comes to GMOs I am not a big fan of these arguments. Same with Vacines. There are always example of people acting irresponsibly or for profit against the public interest. These can be identified to call for wholesale bans that really are nonsensical.

In the end we lose the benefit of advocacy for responsible science by having people take extremes. A lot of good can be done but so can a lot of harm. But doing nothing can also be harmful given the rest of human activity. So the most sensible thing is more informed debate about responsibility, openness, moderation, testing, public information. Wholesale bans are in my view countrer productive.

On GMOs, for example, I think things that have been modified probably should be labeled -- but I don't mean mark it GMO so nobody buys it -- but state what it was that was done. The detail could be published online. Then people can see what they want to support and what they do not. They can see some of the benefits and they can question when there is no benefit to the public or the environment etc. As well the ownership of food is a serious question muddied by the desire to stop any "tampering" with nature.

Humans are already tampering with nature and you cannot roll that back. If we can modify plants to help reduce CO2, grow on water in the oceans --why not? But do it responsibly.

I really dislike the extremes in this debate and I know poeple on both sides personally which makes the discussions awkward.

I am a big fan of science and reasearch -- it is the only thing that *might* save us now anyway.

Of course I do prefer public, not-for-profit and academic science --esp discovery science over an emphasis on private for-profit science but you actually do need both and rational policies that make it possible without abuse.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i don't know any of this Sean. i was living on the Sooke Reservation when Chief Planes put in solar on the band hall and homes and i know they're making really good money from reverse selling.

mom is working on a grant for solar panels and stuff for a hall about the same size as the Sooke Band Hall which is the only reason i know the reverse hook up costs. they don't use the hall in summer very much and it gets the whole day's sun and the valley is considered to be semi arid with majority sun in all seasons so the feasibility to do it was good.

she thinks if it works as the studies show then it could be used as a model for other NPO's who own their own buildings in the Basin and the businesses here too.

This is the argument that the Hydro people make.

I have been told that the cost of a reverse metre is not that high if the Utility finds one tests and approves it but if they leave it up to the people to bring their own each has to be tested and approved.

I am aware of the cost of renewables also being high when you have a system that cannot store power. There are mechanisms to do this but while the government here in Ontario focuses on fundign renewables they have not invested in the storage of power so when the renewables come on stream they effectively lead to wasting power giving it away to other jurisdictions or idling plants. Our systems are not built to be as efficicent as they can be.

I would like to see an analysis of this -- not because I know the answers but because we don't and we should know.

Certainly it would be great to see FN people be able to produce power and sell it in more places. In some palces combinations of solar and wind can work rather than one or the other as more of the time at least one will function. Add to that hopefully we can have future technology like electric cars that can be charged  with excess energy at times.

i heard through the drums Sooke Band may be looking into other methods like wave and tidal. don't know though how for sure it is.

with the hall here i think mom's grant is going for a battery storage system too as there's no real big public place where people can go for emergs. when the hydro goes out. it was out for 6 weeks a few years back because forest fires took the lines out.

we're pretty lucky here as grants for lowering hydro usage have a good chance of being accepted because of the treaty and our community gets a share every year along with being able to apply for environmental ones too.

 

mark_alfred

Well, I finally heard something back from Trudeau's office regarding the letter I sent (described in post #8).  Here's what I received from them:

Trudeau's office wrote:
Dear mark_alfred:

Thank you for your e-mail to the Prime Minister.

Please be assured that your comments have been noted and that they will receive due consideration from the Minister, whom you also addressed in your correspondence.

Once again, thank you for writing.

J.P. Vachon

Manager/Gestionnaire

Executive Correspondence Services

for the Prime Minister's Office

So, I now await Catherine McKenna's response. 

ETA:  Feel free to reread the response I got from Mulcair (post #12) and compare it to what I've so far received from the Liberals.  A significant difference so far.

mark_alfred

Regarding the email I sent to Trudeau, McKenna, and Mulcair, that I described in post #8, I still haven't heard back from the government.  But, I did get a response from Tom Mulcair,

Tom Mulcair wrote:
Thank you for writing in support of global climate action.

I recently returned from the international climate change summit in Paris where I met with activists and decision makers from around the world about how we can tackle climate change.

We're facing an urgent crisis and we need to take real action to reduce the impact of climate change now. We owe it to ourselves and future generations because climate change is a threat to humanity. The natural disasters we've already witnessed are only going to get worse.

Here's how I think Canada can lead the way to help clean up our environment:

  • By enshrining ambitious emission target reductions in law
  • Help less developed nations adapt to the impacts of climate change
  • Strengthen Canada's environmental assessment processes.  

Here's a simple way you can help: sign our petition calling on world leaders to take action now:  www.ndp.ca/climate-action-t1  

Strong, immediate action on climate change is both possible and necessary. When I was the Environment Minister in Quebec, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions and made living in a clean environment a right. Rachel Notley and the NDP team in Alberta are enacting their ambitious plan to take on climate change—they're proving it can be done.  

The new federal government seems to be taking climate change seriously, but their words and promises must be backed up with a real plan and real action. I will continue to push on this file and look forward to working with them to fight climate change.   

Best regards,    

Tom Mulcair, MP (Outremont) Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Well, I finally heard something back from Trudeau's office regarding the letter I sent (described in post #8).  Here's what I received from them:

Trudeau's office wrote:
Dear mark_alfred:

Thank you for your e-mail to the Prime Minister.

Please be assured that your comments have been noted and that they will receive due consideration from the Minister, whom you also addressed in your correspondence.

Once again, thank you for writing.

J.P. Vachon

Manager/Gestionnaire

Executive Correspondence Services

for the Prime Minister's Office

So, I now await Catherine McKenna's response. 

ETA:  Feel free to reread the response I got from Mulcair (post #12) and compare it to what I've so far received from the Liberals.  A significant difference so far.

I don't think the response indicates that you will get another from the minister nor do I think it is reasonable to expect more. A lot more people write to the government than do to the 3rd place party. I got answers from the Liberals when they were in 3rd place too. Mulcair's response sounds like he is still campaigning which he is. He still has the leadership review to pass.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Well, I finally heard something back from Trudeau's office regarding the letter I sent (described in post #8).  Here's what I received from them:

Trudeau's office wrote:
Dear mark_alfred:

Thank you for your e-mail to the Prime Minister.

Please be assured that your comments have been noted and that they will receive due consideration from the Minister, whom you also addressed in your correspondence.

Once again, thank you for writing.

J.P. Vachon

Manager/Gestionnaire

Executive Correspondence Services

for the Prime Minister's Office

So, I now await Catherine McKenna's response. 

ETA:  Feel free to reread the response I got from Mulcair (post #12) and compare it to what I've so far received from the Liberals.  A significant difference so far.

I don't think the response indicates that you will get another from the minister nor do I think it is reasonable to expect more. A lot more people write to the government than do to the 3rd place party. I got answers from the Liberals when they were in 3rd place too. Mulcair's response sounds like he is still campaigning which he is. He still has the leadership review to pass.

What has Mulcair got to do with this Pondering? Why even mention it? Obviously you Libs KNOW you can't win if the NDP goes back to the left. Your response makes me feel certain Trudeau will be a single election Prime Minister. Thanks for cheering me up! You're the best! Wink

ETA: by the way, this is a DEMOCROCAY; the Primer Minsiter has a moral responsiblity to reply to all citien solicitations, or did you think he's a King. Talk about Hubris!

ETA2: Wait a second Pondering, I forgot you do!

mark_alfred

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

I guess its only reasonable to expect a reply only if you will swear allegience to the King! Democracy? Screw democracy!

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

Of course you are correct and the Liberal Zealot ignores the fact that the governing party may get a lot more requests but also has a lot more resources and, as the government, gets to decide on how many more resourses are deployed to responding to the people.

The Liberal Zealot merely deflects from her insistance on a different standard for the Father, the Son and the Holy Liberal Party than the NDP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

Of course you are correct and the Liberal Zealot ignores the fact that the governing party may get a lot more requests but also has a lot more resources and, as the government, gets to decide on how many more resourses are deployed to responding to the people.

The Liberal Zealot merely deflects from her insistance on a different standard for the Father, the Son and the Holy Liberal Party than the NDP.

X2!!!!!!!

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

Of course you are correct and the Liberal Zealot ignores the fact that the governing party may get a lot more requests but also has a lot more resources and, as the government, gets to decide on how many more resourses are deployed to responding to the people.

The Liberal Zealot merely deflects from her insistance on a different standard for the Father, the Son and the Holy Liberal Party than the NDP.

Prior to the election, when you were both a member and eager volunteer, you couldn't get a response from anyone with the NDP.

The "response" from the NDP (post 12) is "signed" by Tom Mulcair. It is obviously a non-commital form letter and I don't believe it was written or sent by Tom Mulcair but there is no other name in the message.

I said not to expect a further response from CM so it's not like I am praising the Liberals. To me their response says it will be passed along to her office so she will get the message, opinion noted. There is nothing in the letter for her to respond to.

The response was signed by Vachon which I prefer. (Post 60)

Sean, your grudge is showing again.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

Of course you are correct and the Liberal Zealot ignores the fact that the governing party may get a lot more requests but also has a lot more resources and, as the government, gets to decide on how many more resourses are deployed to responding to the people.

The Liberal Zealot merely deflects from her insistance on a different standard for the Father, the Son and the Holy Liberal Party than the NDP.

Prior to the election, when you were both a member and eager volunteer, you couldn't get a response from anyone with the NDP.

The "response" from the NDP (post 12) is "signed" by Tom Mulcair. It is obviously a non-commital form letter and I don't believe it was written or sent by Tom Mulcair but there is no other name in the message.

I said not to expect a further response from CM so it's not like I am praising the Liberals. To me their response says it will be passed along to her office so she will get the message, opinion noted. There is nothing in the letter for her to respond to.

The response was signed by Vachon which I prefer. (Post 60)

Sean, your grudge is showing again.

Blah, blah, blah, Pondering.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

Of course you are correct and the Liberal Zealot ignores the fact that the governing party may get a lot more requests but also has a lot more resources and, as the government, gets to decide on how many more resourses are deployed to responding to the people.

The Liberal Zealot merely deflects from her insistance on a different standard for the Father, the Son and the Holy Liberal Party than the NDP.

Prior to the election, when you were both a member and eager volunteer, you couldn't get a response from anyone with the NDP.

The "response" from the NDP (post 12) is "signed" by Tom Mulcair. It is obviously a non-commital form letter and I don't believe it was written or sent by Tom Mulcair but there is no other name in the message.

I said not to expect a further response from CM so it's not like I am praising the Liberals. To me their response says it will be passed along to her office so she will get the message, opinion noted. There is nothing in the letter for her to respond to.

The response was signed by Vachon which I prefer. (Post 60)

Sean, your grudge is showing again.

You miss the point as usual.

The issue is, as I said, that the government decides what resources go to responding to Canadians and you defense of government not responding is disgusting. You likely would not be able to get this becuase your knee jerk defence of anything the Liberals do prevents you.

Yep I have a grudge against your persona here which is little more than a predictable and boring Liberal propaganda feed.

mark_alfred

The response from the Liberals is fine for now.  They haven't rejected my wishes, and promised to give them "due consideration", so that's good.  I hope to hear from the Liberals in the future that they will do as I wish, which is to enact,

mark_alfred's letter wrote:
a climate change accountability law that enshrines Canada's targets for greenhouse gas reductions into law.

Targets should binding and enforceable rather than merely aspirational.  It's too important.

I think public pressure is important.  This government looks like it potentially could do the right thing if it feels the public is onside.  I'm pleased the NDP too is advocating for us on this issue in its role of opposition within the House.  Hopefully the Liberals will do the right thing.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

The response from the Liberals is fine for now.  They haven't rejected my wishes, and promised to give them "due consideration", so that's good.  I hope to hear from the Liberals in the future that they will do as I wish, which is to enact,

mark_alfred's letter wrote:
a climate change accountability law that enshrines Canada's targets for greenhouse gas reductions into law.

Targets should binding and enforceable rather than merely aspirational.  It's too important.

I think public pressure is important.  This government looks like it potentially could do the right thing if it feels the public is onside.  I'm pleased the NDP too is advocating for us on this issue in its role of opposition within the House.  Hopefully the Liberals will do the right thing.

This raises a good point: The Liberals may not be trusted to do the right thing but it is clear that they are listening to the public and if people advocate well and there is a strong opinion on something there is a good chance it will be reflected in policy.

The weakness of this would of course be that the louder more powerful voices tend to prevail.

When it comes to the environment there is some hope as this issue does include some loud voices as it does cut across all income and wealth groups even if there are a disproportionate number of people on the profit-at-any-cost side. When it comes to purely economic divisions things are less hopeful. While most people will get disadvantaged byt he so-called middle class tax cut, the voices of the minority who will take advantage will be loudest. Even organized labour may find that many of their members fall among those with a benefit. This is the kind of issue where Liberal instincts are relevant rather than just the ability to hear. The people who are working and many struggling who do not qualify for assistance are not loud enough. Many of those in the middle class falling below may be unwilling as well to publicly disclose their salaries where as those below the middle class, who may not function in circles where teht would be a problem simply do not have a voice that would be heard.

I am not sure I remember any other tax cut aimed like this one to the upper middle class leaving out everyone underneath yet including all the rhetoric to suggest those people were getting a benefit. It raised the question of course of how intentional this missing of the target was. It either is colossal incompetence or dishonesty and we get to choose which while wondering if one is better than the other.

mark_alfred

Two recent exchanges in the House of Commons on the Environment yesterday (Jan 28, 2016).  

Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) wrote:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be meeting with her provincial counterparts to talk about climate change. Since returning from Paris, the minister has not told us what Canada's targets are. Yesterday, the minister announced that impact on climate change would be a component of pipeline project assessments, but she said nothing about acceptable greenhouse gas emissions targets.    

Can the minister tell us if the government is planning to introduce ambitious new targets or carry on with the old Conservative ones?

Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.) wrote:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.    

We need a pan-Canadian plan to tackle climate change. That is what we are working on. I am very pleased to be meeting with my colleagues from all corners of the country today to talk about the plan.

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) wrote:
Mr. Speaker, in December, at the climate change conference in Paris, Canada committed to a 1.5-degree rise in global temperature. Yesterday the minister announced pipeline reviews that would include climate tests but could not say what a pass or fail would actually look like. A test only matters if they know how they are being graded.    

The minister knows full well that current provincial efforts are not enough to meet the weak goal that Canada currently has. Canadians want to know the real impact a climate test could have for a government that does not even have a climate target.

Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.) wrote:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for joining me in Paris at the climate conference and also for his useful comments.    

We are committed to taking action on climate change. That is why I am meeting today with my colleagues from across the country to talk about what a pan-Canadian plan would be. It would be irresponsible to come up with a new target without actually having a plan to implement it, as the Conservatives did.

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

Two recent exchanges in the House of Commons on the Environment yesterday (Jan 28, 2016).  

Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) wrote:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be meeting with her provincial counterparts to talk about climate change. Since returning from Paris, the minister has not told us what Canada's targets are. Yesterday, the minister announced that impact on climate change would be a component of pipeline project assessments, but she said nothing about acceptable greenhouse gas emissions targets.    

Can the minister tell us if the government is planning to introduce ambitious new targets or carry on with the old Conservative ones?

Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.) wrote:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.    

We need a pan-Canadian plan to tackle climate change. That is what we are working on. I am very pleased to be meeting with my colleagues from all corners of the country today to talk about the plan.

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) wrote:
Mr. Speaker, in December, at the climate change conference in Paris, Canada committed to a 1.5-degree rise in global temperature. Yesterday the minister announced pipeline reviews that would include climate tests but could not say what a pass or fail would actually look like. A test only matters if they know how they are being graded.    

The minister knows full well that current provincial efforts are not enough to meet the weak goal that Canada currently has. Canadians want to know the real impact a climate test could have for a government that does not even have a climate target.

Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.) wrote:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for joining me in Paris at the climate conference and also for his useful comments.    

We are committed to taking action on climate change. That is why I am meeting today with my colleagues from across the country to talk about what a pan-Canadian plan would be. It would be irresponsible to come up with a new target without actually having a plan to implement it, as the Conservatives did.

From your comments I see that you consider the government's answer satisfactory. I join you in that respect!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I agree with Mayor Corrigan. This is just Liberal bullshit. The great shell game, follow the moving pea. Liberal Tory same old story. They just put lipstick on a pig and called it progress.

The newly minted lying Liberal MP is on exactly the same page as the Kinder Morgan representative. That says it all.

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan wrote:

"I’m disappointed. It’s far less than I hoped for. It didn’t meet what (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) said during the campaign. ...  What we’ve got now is a delay for six months, but in essence, he's only continued to support the arrogance of the NEB by, in essence, endorsing them, as has his minister. I think Trudeau is going to find very quickly the bloom is of the rose."

http://www.burnabynow.com/news/burnaby-politicians-kinder-morgan-preside...

 

 

Pondering

From the full interview:

http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/blogs/community-conversations-1.752422...

Beech: Sure, and again, I know this is a talking point, but this commitment is serious, and we should continue to say it as often as we can the prime minister has committed and said repeatedly “government issue permits, but only communities can grant permission,” and we’re standing by that.

Moreau: But what if this community doesn’t grant permission? The city of Burnaby is against it, the mayor is against it, we’ve got a number of residents against it, you’ve got people protesting outside the NEB hearings against it.

Beech: That is exactly what the government and the house will have to take into consideration when it comes down to making a decision.

- See more at: http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/blogs/community-conversations-1.752422...

There are two possibilities. It's a sham and they plan to allow it or they need political cover to turn it down.

mark_alfred

Trudeau Liberals say that there will be a national price put on carbon.  No details on exactly how they plan to do this yet.  So, this seems a step in the right direction.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cp-carbon-pricing-federal-provinces-1.34...

mark_alfred

Has Trudeau's dithering jeopardized the love affair between Elizabeth May and the LPC?

Elizabeth May wrote:
For the Trudeau administration, the clock is ticking loudly. Canada has still not replaced the weak target of the previous government. The Liberal platform promised a national plan, based on provincial consultations, within 90 days of the Paris talks, which is March 12.

Federal leadership is needed. Provinces refusing to do more should meet generous willingness from other governments to take up their slack. Canada will be expected to sign the Paris Agreement at a high-level signing ceremony on April 22, Earth Day. We must not show up with the weakest G7 target, the one left behind by the Conservatives. Time is running out for climate action and for Liberal promises.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/may-its-trudeaus-moment-to-a...

quizzical

Quote:
Many of the other announcements made last week, such as the joint Canada-U.S. agreement to reduce methane gas emissions, may founder on the shoals of American politics.

There is no guarantee that U.S. President Barack Obama’s successor, whoever he or she may be, will have the same interest in battling climate change.

But in the U.S., national security is a touchstone that crosses party lines. And in national security terms, Canada is considered suspect

 

mark_alfred

Naomi Klein calls out Trudeau on “pretending to care” about climate change

Quote:

What is something that former Prime Minister Stephen Harper has over Justin Trudeau? According to Naomi Klein, “at least he didn’t pretend to care” about climate change.

On Friday, Klein criticized a recent statement by Trudeau that pipeline projects will pay for the transition to a low carbon economy. Klein said that the emissions resulting from projects like the proposed Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) terminal on Lelu island or the TransMountain pipeline expansion would break Canada’s carbon budget. Said Klein, “The science is clear and the numbers do not add up.” Recently, a group of 130 scientists have submitted a letter to the federal government criticizing the environmental draft report on the LNG terminal.

quizzical

the harsh difference between Stephan and Justin maybe was created?

Harper pretended not to give a shit, while Justin is all over pretending to give a shit.

i can't even handle listening to him read the words Gerald Buttsa nd Katie Telford are writing for him to spew. they're so fkn phoney and empty it's like nails on a chalkboard.

mark_alfred

Yeah.  A faux difference to ensure that the NDP -- the only major party that challenged corporate might -- didn't win.  [conspiracy-brain-time] I'm convinced that when it was obvious that Harper could not win a majority that he was given the orders from the upper echelons of corporate power to make sure that he would sacrifice his own campaign enough to benefit the Lib campaign and hurt the NDP.  There is no other explanation for hanging out with Ford in TO and doing the hokey cash register thing and also no other explanation for suddenly being concerned about the niqab in Quebec.  Both schemes were asinine and completely out of character for Harper.  He was given orders to bite the bullet for the greater good of corporate might (that being a Lib majority rather than a Lib/NDP minority -- heaven help the corporate overseers if there was another Pearson/Douglas scenario -- heck, that gave us medicare -- had there been a Trudeau/Mulcair scenario we may have had universal affordable childcare (and rejected TPP and moved toward pharmacare!), since the latter half of that pair has a brain and isn't a mindless smiling puppet like the former half. [/conspiracy-brain-time]

mark_alfred

http://aptn.ca/news/2016/03/03/canada-failed-terribly-the-provinces-fail...

Quote:

Athabasca Chipewyan Chief Allan Adams stormed out of the meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada’s premiers and Indigenous leaders on climate change in Vancouver Wednesday because he said it fell to shambles.

“I think Canada’s in a crisis and it ain’t going to get any better now. Canada failed terribly, the provinces failed terribly in regards to addressing this issue,” said an infuriated Adam.

According to Adam the meeting didn’t include any talks of taking care of mother earth, instead the focus was placed on economic development and transitioning to a green economy.

Adam whose community sits three hours north of the Alberta tar sands said he’s now prepping to take the federal and provincial governments to court.

quizzical

well now what a difference this report is to the msm reports.

mark_alfred

I'm still not sure if the Liberal government has committed to a reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions.  Anyone know?

I did see an article recently that the government plans to introduce a national price on carbon.  So, seems something is in the works.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/trudeau-commits-to-national-car...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes Site-C is in the works as well as the Kinder Morgan pipeline to Metro Vancouver.  This government will do nothing except pay lip service to the environment. If corporate Canada wants a project bad enough their water-boy Justin will deliver it for them. 

iyraste1313

If corporate Canada wants a project bad enough their water-boy Justin will deliver it for them. ......

...thanks for this! We should have a list of such water boys....

mark_alfred

David Suzuki wrote:

So, how much better is Canada's climate target than before the Liberals swept to power? Astonishingly, not one bit. Despite all the activity that has taken place, Canada is ignoring its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal. The Paris Agreement doesn't include individual national promises.

 

Canada's target was tabled in May 2015 by former environment minister Leona Aglukkaq. It's the weakest in the G7. Of course, the previous government made few plans and took no steps to hit its mark. But the Harper government's goal of reducing emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 is still Canada's target. So while the premiers are building a plan, they're building it to hit the old, weak target.

Canada's leadership in getting the world to agree to hold global average temperature to 1.5 degrees will come to nothing if our current levels of commitment remain in place. In fact, the impact of the aggregate of actions pledged to date by all nations -- assuming all countries hit their targets on time -- will not be to hold global average temperature to 1.5 C. Those actions will not hold temperature to 2 C. The impact of hitting current targets on global average temperature ranges from 2.7 to 3.5 C.

Unless the current round of targets is withdrawn and replaced by more ambitious actions -- something called for in the Paris Agreement as "ratcheting up" -- we'll lose any chance of keeping Arctic ice at the pole, which will set off feedback loops that will accelerate global warming. Cascading events of greater severity will become unavoidable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/justin-trudeau-climate-promise...

Pages