Originally posted by WulebgrI only hear liberal whine about running to Canada when their presidential hopeful falls short. Think about it, where will a conservative run too? What other country is conservative? I guess we will just have to make our last stand in the US.
Forget about it. If McCain gets elected, no where in the world will be safe from the catastrophe that results.
Originally posted by whodeyThe Conservative party just got re-elected in the Canadian election. The conservatives have governed in Canada longer throughout Canada's history than any other party.
I only hear liberal whine about running to Canada when their presidential hopeful falls short. Think about it, where will a conservative run too? What other country is conservative? I guess we will just have to make our last stand in the US.
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessThe "Conservatives" in Canada are about as Conservative as Bill Clinton in the US.
The Conservative party just got re-elected in the Canadian election. The conservatives have governed in Canada longer throughout Canada's history than any other party.
EDIT: This would be assailed as "socialism" in the US:
Introduced a balanced, achievable plan to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020 and cut air pollution in half by 2015. In this plan:
For the first time ever, industry will be forced by law to meet tough emission reduction targets; and
National caps for industrial emissions of four air pollutants commonly associated with smog and acid rain will be introduced
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4739/78192
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's funny. Very funny. Because our conservatives got that from Bush.
The "Conservatives" in Canada are about as Conservative as Bill Clinton in the US.
EDIT: This would be assailed as "socialism" in the US:
Introduced a balanced, achievable plan to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020 and cut air pollution in half by 2015. In this plan:
For the first time ever, industry will be forced by law to ...[text shortened]... ated with smog and acid rain will be introduced
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4739/78192
If you understood at all what you copied and pasted, the article is talking about "INTENSITY" reductions.
Guess where our Conservatives got the intensity reductions idea? Straight from the republicans. Intensity reductions are a joke and don't really make much difference, although to the uninformed, i'm sure it sounds like something radical.
FAIL
EDIT: Here's some help for ya.
"What is Greenhouse Gas Intensity?
Greenhouse gas intensity is a ratio of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic activity (GDP or unit of production such as barrel of oil). Because economies and many industries grow, GHG intensity can decline while GHG emissions continue to rise. In the absence of effective climate change policies, such as a true cap-and-trade system for Canadian industry, this is exactly what happens in most cases. For example, between 1990 and 2004, Canadian industry improved its GHG-intensity by 6 per cent while its emissions grew by 13 per cent.1 In other words, improvements in emissions intensity were more than overwhelmed by the growth of polluting activities from Canada’s industrial sector. Setting—and even reaching—intensity-based targets does not ensure that climate change is addressed. The only way to do this is through true emission reductions."
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/climate/Intensity_Targets_Not_The_Solution.pdf
Originally posted by uzlessPlease show the relevance of your cut and paste to what I quoted, specifically these parts:
That's funny. Very funny. Because our conservatives got that from Bush.
If you understood at all what you copied and pasted, the article is talking about "INTENSITY" reductions.
Guess where our Conservatives got the intensity reductions idea? Straight from the republicans. Intensity reductions are a joke and don't really make much difference, altho ...[text shortened]... s."
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/climate/Intensity_Targets_Not_The_Solution.pdf
reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020 and cut air pollution in half by 2015
AND
For the first time ever, industry will be forced by law to meet tough emission reduction targets
Neither are any part of Bush's "policy" here.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderUh, did you not understand what i posted? Read the rest of the article then.
Please show the relevance of your cut and paste to what I quoted, specifically these parts:
reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas INTENSITY emissions 20% by 2020 and cut air pollution INTENSITY in half by 2015
AND
For the first time ever, industry will be forced by law to meet EASILY ACHIEVEABLE emiss ...[text shortened]... INTENSITY reduction targets
Neither are any part of Bush's "policy" here.
I've fixed your cut/paste. Maybe it will make more sense to you now.
As for you claim this is not a Bush idea, consider the following article and note it is from 2004. Our conservatives were elected after that.
"The paper analyzes the two major components of the Bush Administration’s climate policy, namely an emission intensity target and a technology strategy. The question is whether those components will generate net emission reductions that will contribute to the stabilization of the greenhouse gas concentration at a safe level in the long run. It comes out that the Bush Administration climate policy does not guarantee any meaningful contribution to climate protection. The lenient emission intensity target set by the Administration will most likely allow near term emissions to grow"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
Care to spew anymore crap for me to correct?
EDIT: and just because i can't resist hammering the point home.....
"Ambitious National Goal to Reduce Emissions Intensity
In February 2002, President Bush committed the United States to a comprehensive strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas emission intensity of the American economy by 18 percent by 2012. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/global-change.html
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessCould you please cite where in the Bush policy "industry will be forced by law to meet tough emission reduction targets"? Or ANY emission targets? Perhaps you missed this part of the last cite you gave: "The Federal Government administers many different voluntary programs on energy efficiency, agricultural practices, and greenhouse gas reductions."
Uh, did you not understand what i posted? Read the rest of the article then.
I've fixed your cut/paste. Maybe it will make more sense to you now.
As for you claim this is not a Bush idea, consider the following article and note it is from 2004. Our conservatives were elected after that.
"The paper analyzes the two major components of the Bush rican economy by 18 percent by 2012. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/global-change.html
If you're going to be an arrogant loudmouth, at least try to get the facts straight.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder"arrogant loud mouth" Is that what you call someone that corrects you?
Could you please cite where in the Bush policy "industry will be forced by law to meet tough emission reduction targets"? Or ANY emission targets? Perhaps you missed this part of the last cite you gave: "The Federal Government administers many different [b]voluntary programs on energy efficiency, agricultural practices, and greenhouse gas reductions If you're going to be an arrogant loudmouth, at least try to get the facts straight.[/b]
You still don't understand what "INTENSITY" means. It means that industry in canada DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. As part of the natural business cycle intensity is reduced. It's all explained for you in the first article I posted.
It makes no difference if it's in law. If I made a law that said all cars must travel at least 1 mile per hour, do you think this somehow is an improvement on traffic safety??
Learn the differnce between intensity reductions and real reductions...othewise, BE GONE young man and leave the debates to grown ups.
EDIT: Since you've decided to grasp desperately to this notion of a target being "in law" consider the following explaining how stupid and meaningless it is.
"Historically, U.S. greenhouse gas intensity has declined all by itself as our economy has evolved from manufacturing (which takes a lot of energy) to services (which take less), and as equipment has naturally become more efficient. Over the past few decades, greenhouse gas intensity has declined somewhere between 1% and 2% per year.
At the same time, the economy has grown more rapidly than this, so total greenhouse gas emissions have increased.
Several years ago, the Bush administration committed itself to an 18% decrease in greenhouse gas intensity over a decade -- corresponding to a decrease of about 1.8% per year. This represents negligible if any increase in the natural rate of decline.
In other words, they basically committed the U.S. to maintaining the status quo"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/30/192656/23
So, Canada has committed to a 20 percent intensity reduction by 2020. Do the math. 12 years times 2percent equal 24%. Wuhoo, we'll be 4 percent ahead of our target! Success???
Come on, you are smarter than this.
3 edits
Originally posted by uzlessYour analysis is flawed and your attitude is that of an arrogant loudmouth unless you consider this statement as a valid part of reasoned debate:
"arrogant loud mouth" Is that what you call someone that corrects you?
You still don't understand what "INTENSITY" means. It means that industry in canada DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. As part of the natural business cycle intensity is reduced. It's all explained for you in the first article I posted.
It makes no difference if it's in law. If I made 4 percent ahead of our target! Success???
Come on, you are smarter than this.
uzless: Care to spew anymore crap for me to correct?
I have not claimed that the Canadian approach is a good one; I have only asserted that there, unlike here, actual emission targets have been enacted into law rather than left to voluntary agreement. Your wiseass comments don't change that fact.
It would take some expansion of the Canadian economy to not reduce greenhouse emissions IF the law actually requires ONLY intensity reductions of 20% (something I have not been able to verify by your cites). The 1 MPH analogy is pretty obviously flawed; the emission laws don't set a cap above what it is the prevalent emission rate now.
EDIT: Looking at this overview of the Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions it does say: 150MT absolute reduction of toal emissions is targeted from the 2006 level of 780 MT
http://www.macleoddixon.com/documents/Canadas_Regulatory_Framework_for_Air_Emissions.pdf
Originally posted by no1marauderBill Clinton is a Socialist?
The "Conservatives" in Canada are about as Conservative as Bill Clinton in the US.
EDIT: This would be assailed as "socialism" in the US:
Introduced a balanced, achievable plan to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020 and cut air pollution in half by 2015. In this plan:
For the first time ever, industry will be forced by law to ...[text shortened]... ated with smog and acid rain will be introduced
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4739/78192
Conservatives in Canada, yes. Democrats in the USA? Only from a right-wing American POV.
