Whitby Shores Community Forums

I'm confused and maybe I'm misreading this. Between your two posts you say you want an election if the parties can't agree BUT you don't like that the Conservatives are saying essentially saying the same thing?

As far as Kyoto, WHY are people so interested in keeping a commitment to a flawed agreement that, in reality, will really do nothing to lower overall global GHG emmissions? Kyoto allows for countries like India and China to significantly increase their pollution while they are developing their economies. From my understanding, apparently China is set to surpass the US (currently the world's largest GHG polluter) in it's GHG emmissions this year and will continue to increase at a rate of 10% a year. The fact is, despite a high per-capita GHG rate, Canada only generates 2% of the world's GHG emissions.

Am I saying this excuses us from doing something? Not at all. However, to meet Kyoto we would need to significantly scale back our economy, driving us into a recession (and all associated job losses) OR buy GHG credits from other countries. Why should we take Canadian dollars and give them to other countries to buy credits for our excess GHG emissions? Buying credits doesn't help the environment, it only makes us feel better to say "hey, we're doing something!"

So, wouldn't it make more sense, and be a better investment for our kids, to keep those billions of dollars in Canada to be used on initiatives for reduction of our GHG emissions? Once we've laid the groundwork, developed a realistic & workable plan and set the example we can then be world leaders in helping other countries reduce their much larger footprints than ours.

Let's keep in mind that it's your opinion that a minority government has to compromise and it's what you expect from a minority government.  Not everyone feels that way.  On some things there are no compromises.  For example, I don't believe the Conservatives should compromise on their crime bill.  

So let's look at the facts about Kyoto and Canada:

To keep a commitment that is significantly flawed and will have minimal to no impact, no matter what the commitment, is irrational.  It's based solely on emotions, not reality.  Considering there are also significant negative financial penalties it's also irresponsible.  Can the Conservatives do more about the environment?  Absolutely.  Can Canadians do more?  Absolutely.  However, I personally don't believe that Kyoto is our solution, given that it allows developing countries to continue to increase their GHG pollution with no penalty or targets.  

Here's a thought.  Why not take all of that money we would owe for emission credits under Kyoto and put it into R&D here in Canada for green solutions?  It would keep money in our economy, create jobs and raise Canadian standards of living (potentially addressing things like child poverty).  When successful, Canada could then market it to other countries in the world and reap the rewards, both financially and environmentally.

Kyoto was a commitment that was made by a former government who had a clear record of pandering to voters.  I can only assume the Liberals did nothing because they knew it was flawed.  The truth is if they were really so committed to Kyoto they had plenty of years of a majority government to put the plan in motion.  The simple truth is, they didn't do anything.  

So let's be fair.  We can agree that something needs to be done.  However, to lay the failure of Canada to meet Kyoto on the feet of anyone but the Liberals is short sighted, unrealistic and extremely unfair.  The Kyoto accord was agreed to in 1997.  The Conservatives have only been in a position of power (and minority at that) for 1.5 years.  We're talking about fitting in 10 years of changes in a 1 1/2 year period.  If the Liberals had started to plan back in 1997 to meet 2007 targets, it MAY have been achievable without a significant impact to our economy.  To have done it in 1.5 years would have had a huge impact.

When you say you're interested to know how would we go into a recession by scaling back, you kind of answered your own question.  A recession is, by it's very definition, the scaling back of an economy.  

However, to explain in more detail our economy is heavily dependent upon polluting technology.  To meet Kyoto (EVEN if the Conservatives tried to do it when they were first elected) would take an extremely aggressive approach.  As well, the technology simply isn't there to support this.  In addition, the costs to implement the minimal technology that IS available would be extremely prohibative in this short time frame.  To pass laws forcing companies to conform takes time, time that simply wasn't available.  These laws would also have financial costs.  To force companies to lay out significant amounts of cash to convert to green technology in 1.5 years would have a huge impact on their operations.  Cuts would need to be made somewhere.  Since typically the single largest expense for any employer is its employees, the cuts would come in the form of job losses.  Start massive layoffs and you're in a recession.  If, instead of cost reduction, prices increase sharply to account for these added expenses, you run into a recession known as stagflation where wages can't keep up with the rising prices, causing a decrease in spending power.  As a result sales drop significantly.  However prices can't drop because they are no longer affected by demand.  The result is more layoffs as companies try to stay afloat.  It's simple economics.

On the flip side, to start pouring out huge amounts of money from the Canadian economy to buy pollution credits because we can't meet the Kyoto targets would also have a negative impact on our economy.  Taking that much money our of our economy would drive us into recession.  It would lower our standard of living, thereby increasing things such as child poverty rates.  

Well, where we seem to agree is that something needs to be done and a clear plan needs to be developed.  We also agree Kyoto has flaws/gaps.  The degree to which it is flawed/gapped, and subsequent overall benefit, varies based on personal opinion.  We also seem to agree that lack of activity by the government is the reason we won't be able to hit the targets of this flawed agreement.  Where this blame lies also varies based on opinion.

So, from my opinion, I am against maintaining the commitment to Kyoto because I don't believe it is in the best interests of Canada or Canadians.  The former government, from a majority position, did nothing with the 8 years between when they made the agreement and the time they lost power.  As a result the current government, from a minority position, has been tasked to develop a plan and implement solutions to meet this commitment within 2 years of assuming a position of leadership.  At the point of assuming leadership, the economic impacts to Canada to keep the commitment by 2008, either direct through forced changes or indirect through substantial penalties, would be significant.

Some may disagree, but I don't think I'm alone here when I say that it would be irresponsible for any government to negatively impact the economy simply because a previous government made this commitment which is now impossible to keep as a result of their inaction.  Therefore, the most responsible thing for our government to do would be to develop a solution outside of Kyoto.  

I think it shows true leadership to stand up and say "While we have this agreement, it is quite simply unattainable and not in our best interest to keep the agreement.  Since the problem still exists, we are going to back out of the agreement and look for real working alternative solutions".  Don't get me wrong, had the Conservatives negotiated the agreement 10 years ago, been in power the whole time and dropped the ball the way the Liberals did, I would absolutely hold them accountable.  

I guess I just have one final thought.  It seems as though the Conservatives are being cited for not compromising in the house and that's not how some feel a minority government should be run.  While I disagree, I certainly respect that.  However, given that there seems to be agreement that Kyoto is flawed and can not be met, where are the compromises by the supporters of Kyoto?  There seems to be no compromising from the Green, NDP or Liberals with respect to Kyoto.  It appears the only available compromise here is the Conservatives must meet the commitment to Kyoto or they are failing Canada and the world.  How can there be any compromise when the response to any discussion is simply "We must meet Kyoto"?

At the end of the day, we need to ask ourselves if the real issue here is Kyoto or if it is developing a real and effective action plan for lowering our GHG emissions?  Are we going to continue to tread water arguing about meeting something that is unattainable or are we going to move forward and have some real discussion about what CAN be done?  Where are the opposition parties standing up and saying "OK, we'll compromise.  Kyoto is dead and we'll agree to your made in Canada solution.  When are we going to sit down and determine a balanced but aggressive course of action?"

By the way, from what I understand a LOT of countries are now coming out and saying they also won't be able to meet the targets (Japan, most EU countries).  So we're not alone here.  Again, doesn't mean we shouldn't do something.  Just analyzing Kyoto.   

There are a few countries that will meet their targets, most of these being former Soviet bloc countries.  However, their economies entered a period of major recession in the 90's.  It is widely recognized that their ability to meet the targets are directly a result of this recession and it's continued impact.  However, studies have also shown that while they are currently below their 1990 emission levels, each of their economies are rebounding and, as a result, their GHG emissions are all on the rise.

To quote directly from your wikipedia source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol) as provided:

"As of year-end 2006, the United Kingdom and Sweden were the only EU countries on pace to meet their Kyoto emissions commitments by 2010."

Since there are 15 countries in the EU (source reference) I would say that an 87% failure rate could be described as "most".

To further quote your source:

"The EU-15 group of nations reduced their emissions by 0.8% between 1990 and 2004"

Remember, the target is an 8.0% reduction.

As well, taken from a chart in your source for specific EU countries showing a difference from 1990 levels (remember, Kyoto target is minus 8.0% except Norway at 1% increase):

Portugal: 41% increase
Spain:         49% increase
Norway:      10% increase
France:       0.8% decrease
Greece:       27% increase
Ireland:       23% increase

Another quote from your source regarding the increase in emissions by China and India (both exempt from Kyoto targets) showing why Kyoto is a flawed agreement:

China: 47% increase
India: 55% increase

Canada, as of 2004, is 27% above 1990 levels.  

As far as the comment from the source "Current EU projections suggest that by 2008 the EU will be at 4.7% below 1990 levels." if you read this further you would see this is not because of any valiant effort on the part of the Eu.  It is because of the inclusion of the former Warsaw Pact countries in the combined EU target.  Most of these "new" EU countries are significantly below 1990 levels simply because of the significant recession as a result of changing from Communism to market driven economies that occurred in the mid-90's.  The EU as a whole is benefitting by including the Warsaw Pact countries already significantly reduced levels into a combined target.

Remember, this is all taken directly from your source, which clearly you feel is a credible source on the topic.
  
Again, we seem to get lost in the debate here.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing something.  What I'm SAYING is let's focus on the real problem, lowering GHG emissions, instead of wasting time talking about a comittment to a flawed agreement that has targets which are impossible to attain in the timeframes provided for in the agreement.  

This is WHY the Canadian government is at a stalemate.  This is why there is no compromise.  The Conservatives want to discuss a made in Canada solution and the other parties refuse to move forward with discussions, instead clinging to the Kyoto agreement.  

I'm torn on this.  Maybe we do need an election, only because I feel as though minority governments rarely get anything accomplished.  

Truth told, the debate about Kyoto and how a minority government should work was started by you as an issue which should be a cause for an election.  You don't believe the Conservatives should draw a line in the sand on things when they have a minority government.  I believe regardless of type of government, there are some things based upon fundamental differences in approach to a solution where a party should draw a clear line in the sand with no compromise.

Again, whether or not the activities and vision of each party will better our country is all based on perspective and viewpoint.  I know this is a provincial issue, but for example purposes, many believe significant and immediate increases to minimum wage will only cause inflation, slow economic growth and force more people below the poverty line.  Supporters of increases to minimum wage clearly do not agree.  However, both sides of the debate are honestly trying to make our country better.  They just disagree on the approach.  Given the polarity of the viewpoints, compromise is a difficult thing to reach.

Let's be realistic here.  Even if we were to hold an election today, with the way polls are showing we would most likely end up with the Conservatives at the wheel of another minority government.  So I guess the question is, what is the anticipated benefit of calling an election outside of the normal political life-cycle when you would essentially expect the same result?

According to data from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from 2000-2004 the original 15 EU members increased their collective emissions by 2.4%.  Don't take this the wrong way, they are doing much better than Canada, but they've also been working at it longer (from my understanding, since the early 90's).

I say again, this discussion is indicative of the problems in our government.  Rather than taking a "let's find a solution that works" approach, it keeps getting pulled back into a "Kyoto" discussion.  Keep in mind, Kyoto does not contain solutions.  It is a set of targets with significant fines for a select group of countries if the targets are not met (some say up to $25 billion per year for Canada alone).  Either way, Canada is going to have to come up with a "made in Canada" solution to how it's going to achieve its targets.  

The simple fact remains the Kyoto commitment is now unattainable because of more than 8 years of inactivity by the former government (which is probably why the Liberals are keeping their mouths shut).  Their complete inactivity put Canada in a position of having to pay substantial penalties under Kyoto, on top of significant costs to convert to greener solutions.  Realistically, there is no way anyone could change our country and economy fast enough, without a significant impact to our economy, to meet the targets within the 2 years that the Liberals have been out of power.

Finally, just because some don't feel the Kyoto commitment is the solution does not mean they don't recognize there is a problem that must be addressed, that they don't care about climate change.  I don't even have a problem with the targets, I have a problem with the penalties thanks to years of inactivity by the former government.  

So, instead of holding back progress by refusing to discuss anything but Kyoto, why not be part of the solution?  I say write to your MP with suggestions on what we can do to reduce our GHG emissions.  

Wayyyy back, Risky wrote:

1) The 15 countries of the "old EU" overall reduced their emissions from their 1990 levels. It is below the targets but it is light years ahead of where Canada is. Did we observe any drop in their standard of living as predicted by Harper a few years ago (some nonsense about "job killing, tax raising program")?

You have addressed an important point.  The Kyoto target of using CO2 from 1990 levels was chosen, in part, because it would be the easiest goal for many of the old EU countries, namely Britain, Germany and France to achieve.  Recall that the industrial output of East Germany fell dramatically after the wall fell - this fact helps Germany make their target. Closing coal plants in Britain and a rapid expansion of nuclear power generation in France is helping those countries meet their goals (in theory).

As a related fact, so-called Global Warming stopped in 1998. Of course, this is hard to find in the press.  But, it is true. 1998 was an El Nino year, so it was warm anyway, but as for global temps since, they are on a downward trend.

Believe it or not, Canadians Macintyre and McKitrick are academics leading the charge challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory orthodoxy preached by the UN, the IPCC, AL Gore and others.  

The debate is not over, and I predict that soon you will start seeing politicians and possibly the press starting to openly doubt that man-made global warming: a) exists, or if it is: b) a problem we can do anything about.