Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Paris Climate Summit


Recommended Posts

There is a chattering class that is obsessed with such issues, however, to suggest that such opinions extend beyond the narrow echo chamber where this chattering class resides is delusional at best. IOW, for every alarmist that was appalled at Harper's position there was a sceptic that cheered and 10 people who simply did not care.

says you... a guy that revels in one of the 'narrowest of echo chambers', vis-a-vis the predominant positioning of fake-skeptics within the so-called blogging 'denialsphere'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It "collaborative" because at this point in time all of the invites are going to be singing from the Trudeau playbook (even the CPC leader would likely keep quiet out of politeness). Trudeau would not be so keen to have people in his entourage if they were out to undermine the position of the Canadian government as was the case for Harper.

the Harper Conservative INDC submission to COP 21 stands as the Canadian 'record of account' going into the meetings... where, pre-negotiations, Canada has committed to, "reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy-wide by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030". Certainly it's easy to critique the long-standing failed record of prior Harper Conservative commitments made... as it is in regards to the nonsense peddled in that Harper Conservative INDC submission... particularly where a federal target was presented without regard to any... TO ANY... consultation with Canadian provinces; i.e., the "Harper Way"!

imagine that, the PM-designate Trudeau... actually inviting provincial premiers to the meetings! What a concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, unlike people who disagree Harper, people who disagree with Trudeau tend to be more polite about and would not seek to undermine Trudeau at the summit.

versus Harper Conservatives attempting to scuttle/undermine actual past summits? Canada wins ‘Lifetime Unachievement’ Fossil award

...the special prize was given to point to the Harper government’s longstanding failure to make meaningful contributions and instead resort to blocking and stalling progress at the UN climate talks.

“After winning the Colossal Fossil award – given to the country doing the most damage to climate talks in a given year – five years in a row, Canada is in a league of its own for its total lack of credibility on climate action,” said Christian Holz, Executive Director of Climate Action Network Canada. “The utter lack of a credible climate policy plan on the part of the Harper government has gone a long way towards undermining Canada’s standing in the world, even as a clear majority of Canadian citizens seek action and leadership on climate change.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

No biggee...the previous ruling Liberals (Chretien/Martin) made lots of promises for Kyoto and promptly ignored the treaty.

Appearances are far more important than substance.

you clearly have no standing in this discussion; your long-established targeted focus on the Liberal Party of Canada has no merit. Again, I've already detailed (for you) the monumental effort taken by the Liberal Party to actually get the treaty ratified... that took years of working with provinces and the business world. You know... ratify... the thing your (claimed) country failed to do after signing/committing to the treaty. The Liberals also enacted an action plan with a $half-billion commitment intended to reduce GHG's... along with a formal climate change plan with target reduction measures/commitments. The Liberals also pledged an additional $1 billion for its climate change plan - while offering business/industry/consumers incentives. The Liberals also provided an ongoing series of promotional campaigns aimed to bring awareness of climate change and GHGs' as well as what individual Canadians can do to reduce energy use/emissions. The Liberals also enacted an emissions standard agreement with Canadian automakers. The Liberals also brought forward the formal Kyoto implementation plan with $10 billion pledges, target commitments and industry reduction requirements. Of course, we can't ignore the Opposition Conservative party efforts to counter Liberal Kyoto related actions/intent during the minority governing period.

so ya, considering Kyoto went into effect in 2005, the Liberal Party did a fair amount before the anti-Kyoto Harper came on in 2006. And through all that lead-up time, it was the obstructionist Harper doing his best to undermine any progress attempted/made. This Alliance Party fundraising letter from Harper pretty much sums up that obstruction sentiment and positioning:

Dear Friend,

We’re on a roll, folks!

...

But we can’t just relax and declare victory. We’re gearing up for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership. I’m talking about the “battle of Kyoto” — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto Accord.

It would take more than one letter to explain what’s wrong with Kyoto, but here are a few facts about this so-called “Accord”:

— It’s based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.

— It focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than upon pollutants.

— Canada is the only country in the world required to make significant cuts in emissions. Third World countries are exempt, the Europeans get credit for shutting down inefficient Soviet-era industries, and no country in the Western hemisphere except Canada is signing.

— Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

— As the effects trickle through other industries, workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD.

— The only winners will be countries such as Russia, India, and China, from which Canada will have to buy “emissions credits.” Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.

— On top of all this, Kyoto will not even reduce greenhouse gases. By encouraging transfer of industrial production to Third World countries where emissions standards are more relaxed, it will almost certainly increase emissions on a global scale.

For a long time, the Canadian Alliance stood virtually alone in opposing the Kyoto Accord, as Bob Mills, our senior environment critic, waged a valiant battle against it. Now, however, allies are stepping forward — eight of 10 provincial governments, and a broad coalition of businesses across Canada — to help us fight the ``battle of Kyoto.”

Jean Chrétien says he will introduce a resolution to ratify Kyoto into Parliament and get it passed before Christmas. We will do everything we can to stop him there, but he might get it passed with the help of the socialists in the NDP and the separatists in the BQ.

But the “battle of Kyoto” is just beginning. Ratification is merely symbolic; Kyoto will not take effect unless and until it is implemented by legislation. We will go to the wall to stop that legislation and at that point we will be on much stronger procedural ground than in trying to block a mere resolution.

The Reform Party defeated the Charlottetown Accord in an epic struggle in the fall of 1992. Now the Canadian Alliance is leading the battle against the Kyoto Accord!

But we can’t do it alone. It will take an army of Canadians to beat Kyoto, just as it did to beat Charlottetown.

We can’t stop Kyoto just in Parliament. We need your help at all levels. We need you to inform yourself about Kyoto, to discuss it with your friends and neighbours, and to write protest letters to newspapers and the government.

And, yes, we need your gifts of money. The “battle of Kyoto” is going to lead directly into the next election. We need your contribution of $500, or $250, or $100, or whatever you can afford, to help us drive the Liberals from power.

Yours truly,

Stephen Harper, MP

Leader of the Opposition [2002]

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 reduction "targets" are a joke. Smart countries will promise targets that they will meet anyway with no additional effort (e.g. China).

I've already dispensed with that same talking point, vis-a-vis China's requirements in regards to the "one-on-one" agreement it made with the U.S.. Clearly, you're a devotee of the nonsense that claims peak can simply be met (and never exceeded) by simply following BAU! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax all CO2 emissions but reduce income taxes to ensure no additional revenue is collected.

No targets. No carbon trading. No renewable mandates.

huh! The B.C. government most certainly has emission reduction targets... the carbon tax is (one of) the vehicles to that end; notwithstanding the prominent role BC is playing within the still developing "Western Climate Initiative" Cap & Trade system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This premier thing is a load off bullshit.

Fly all the Premiers to Paris to have a great party? At that flight length, they all will be expensing business class. No real targets yet, but hey, let's fly all the Premiers in, stay in expensive hotels and to charge the taxpayers for all of it.

Complete and utter bullshit. The LPC at it again, wasting taxpayer money.

big picture much! :lol: It's always quite telling to read neophytes forever railing on about 'carbon footprints'... while completely ignoring where real/significantly meaningful emissions are actually generated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

other than failed/incorrect talking points... do you have anything else to offer?

This came up recently and it's reasonable to assert that the Liberals didn't pay adequate attention. If you're going to call up old discussions with climate skeptics on here, you should walk the walk and remember the discussions that you yourself took part in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This came up recently and it's reasonable to assert that the Liberals didn't pay adequate attention. If you're going to call up old discussions with climate skeptics on here, you should walk the walk and remember the discussions that you yourself took part in.

"didn't pay adequate attention"??? Reasonable to assert??? They guy wrote, "signed it and promptly forgot about it". In post #54 I detailed direct measures taken, notwithstanding the direct obstructionist workings of Harper.

if you have something to say in regards your statement, "you should walk the walk and remember the discussions that you yourself took part in.", don't be so vague... state directly and specifically what you mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"didn't pay adequate attention"??? Reasonable to assert??? They guy wrote, "signed it and promptly forgot about it". In post #54 I detailed direct measures taken, notwithstanding the direct obstructionist workings of Harper.

What part of "The Liberals didn't perform well" involves any comment on Harper ?

This is the failed talking point according to you: "Right, the liberals** signed it, and promptly forgot about it"

The response to such an assertion is that Harper won a Golden Fossil award or what have you. It's "Yes, I agree the Liberals didn't do a good job" or a counterpoint with evidence.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're being even in your treatment of Liberal governments on this matter.

if you have something to say in regards your statement, "you should walk the walk and remember the discussions that you yourself took part in.", don't be so vague... state directly and specifically what you mean.

The Liberal government maybe wouldn't have won a "Golden Fossil" but they sure could have taken the silver. Do you care about the environment and if so why don't you hold them to task ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh right... is this the Michael Harder playing "devil's advocate" to try and spur discussion? :D

What part of "The Liberals didn't perform well" involves any comment on Harper? [waldo: which part of an unsubstantiated claim of "poor performance" can be so completely dismissive of the position/tactics of the anti-Kyoto Harper? As I said, that letter from Harper sums up his obstructionist bent quite well"... I find it quite telling that you simply accept the UNSUBSTANTIATED comment... verbatim]

This is the failed talking point according to you: "Right, the liberals** signed it, and promptly forgot about it". The response to such an assertion is that Harper won a Golden Fossil award or what have you. It's "Yes, I agree the Liberals didn't do a good job" or a counterpoint with evidence. [waldo: no - the response to such an assertion lies within post #54... as I stated previously to you! Perhaps you should actually read it, hey... speaking to Fossil awards was simply gravy!]

I'm beginning to wonder if you're being even in your treatment of Liberal governments on this matter. [waldo: again, read what I wrote - what a concept! Notwithstanding, Kyoto went into effect in 2005... perhaps you should step forward and speak to what you expected to occur prior to the 2005 implementation. I've written what was done/attempted... notwithstanding the monumental effort just to ratify the treaty... notwithstanding the obstructionist Harper. Perhaps you can speak to your, as yet, undeclared expectations]

The Liberal government maybe wouldn't have won a "Golden Fossil" but they sure could have taken the silver. Do you care about the environment and if so why don't you hold them to task ? [waldo: again... step up and declare your expectations. When you do that I may choose to offer you comment... perhaps even in regard to your stated, "task holding" and totally uncalled for slag about my environmental concerns.]

Link to post
Share on other sites

for those interested in the actual thread topic, the recent days ending Bonn meetings finalized the draft negotiating text for COP 21 in Paris: Draft Climate Change Agreement Forwarded to Paris

as of now, I've not found a 'for public release' version of that draft text. WRI offers a summary assessment of the Bonn meetings:

Negotiators made some significant strides here in Bonn, but a much more vigorous pace is needed to secure a strong climate agreement in just a few weeks. We’ve been running a marathon to reach to this point. Now we need an all-out sprint to get over the finish line in Paris.

“This week, negotiators took full ownership in crafting the draft agreement which demonstrates their strong commitment to a successful outcome in Paris. This determination needs to continue at all levels to connect the dots between the negotiations and the ministerial gatherings ahead of COP 21.

“The current state of the draft agreement reflects how close countries are to reaching consensus on key topics. For example, progress was made on mitigation and transparency where negotiators are now debating the details, while on adaptation and finance more fundamental differences remain. Progress was also made to achieve a long-term goal and a robust ratchet mechanism, but the details matter and need to be included in the agreement.

“Over 150 countries have put forward national climate plans, an unprecedented achievement. Now countries need to solidify the rules and norms to maximize the impact of these plans and drive climate action for decades to come.”

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh right... is this the Michael Harder playing "devil's advocate" to try and spur discussion? :D

I ask the same questions of other posters that I ask myself.

waldo: which part of an unsubstantiated claim of "poor performance" can be so completely dismissive of the position/tactics of the anti-Kyoto Harper? As I said, that letter from Harper sums up his obstructionist bent quite well"... I find it quite telling that you simply accept the UNSUBSTANTIATED comment... verbatim[/b][/color]]

Once again you have answered a question about the Liberals by commenting on the Conservatives. This is called doubling down. Here's a hint: it's not an either/or question.

Also this is not unsubstantiated. It was recently quoted that the Liberals paid lip service to commitments and I researched it and found that there was popular support for this claim.

I have asked you to acknowledge that but you don't seem to want to for some reason so I will stop asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you have answered a question about the Liberals by commenting on the Conservatives. This is called doubling down. Here's a hint: it's not an either/or question. [waldo: once again, I did not! Again, now for the 3rd time, I addressed what the Liberals did/attempted to do in post #54... it's not my fault you refuse to read it and/or acknowledge it. And, again, addressing presumed 'poor performance' must include obstacles to said performance; i.e., again, references to the obstructionist Harper]

Also this is not unsubstantiated. It was recently quoted that the Liberals paid lip service to commitments and I researched it and found that there was popular support for this claim. I have asked you to acknowledge that but you don't seem to want to for some reason so I will stop asking. [waldo: the MLW member's posted statement was totally unsubstantiated. I can't read your mind, particularly one you presume to suddenly present after-the-fact... so your nonsensical claim I acknowledge something you just now present is laughable, indeed! Speaking of asks, I've asked twice for you to present your expectations for what should have/could have been done prior to the actual Kyoto treaty deployment in 2005... as you say, you don't seem to want to respond to that for some reason so I will stop asking. I guess I'll also stop expecting an apology for your completely uncalled for impugning of my concerns for the environment, hey!]

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... It was recently quoted that the Liberals paid lip service to commitments and I researched it and found that there was popular support for this claim.

That's because the claim is true. Canada's Kyoto FAIL started immediately after the Liberal government signed up through 2002 ratification, with no clue about how to plan or execute policy to meet the targets. Waiting until 2005 to magically begin "de-carbonizing" the economy was a plan to FAIL...the Conservatives just admitted the obvious and shut it all down. Liberal or Conservative...a massive Kyoto FAIL.

Justin Trudeau admitted as much by refusing to even play that stupid game again.

Bob Mills was a Reform Party MP from Alberta who went to Kyoto with the government. He was in Johannesburg five years later when the country agreed to reduce emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels.

"If we ratify this thing we'll never hit our targets," Mills warned Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien at the time, because he was worried Canada's international reputation would take a hit.

To his disappointment, Mills was right. As 2005 rolled around, Canada was nowhere near to having a plan and our emissions were rising. When he entered government a year later, the Conservatives started to lay the groundwork for much less ambitious greenhouse gas reductions.

"In 2006, it was a pretty tough situation because nothing really had been accomplished. We had these targets in front of us, they were impossible to hit," he said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

waldo: once again, I did not! Again, now for the 3rd time, I addressed what the Liberals did/attempted to do in post #54... it's not my fault you refuse to read it and/or acknowledge it.

Really ? I looked back at post #54 for the 2nd time and only saw a link and excerpt to the Harper govt getting the fossil award. I apologize if I'm missing something.[/b]

waldo: the MLW member's posted statement was totally unsubstantiated. I can't read your mind, particularly one you presume to suddenly present after-the-fact...

I don't need you to read my mind as much as learning from the discussion, including discussions that bring the Liberal government's record into question. For someone who is so well versed in government misdeeds I am floored with you not remembering a discussion where the Liberals were the target.[/b]

present your expectations for what should have/could have been done prior to the actual Kyoto treaty deployment in 2005...

My understanding is that targets were set much earlier than ratification happened and that the assessment others gave is that the Chretien Liberals did not take adequate steps to achieve those targets.

I do not know, nor do I understand the specifics to any level of detail. I'm conveying analysis of press reports that came up in the 5 minutes of research I undertook last time. If you expect me to have those details at my fingertips, then I don't think it's too much for me to expect you to remember that that conversation even happened.

expecting an apology for your completely uncalled for impugning of my concerns for the environment, hey![/color]]

In the spirit of moving past this, perhaps you can just list the top three failures of Liberal governments with regards to the environment then. I look to you to educate me on environmental issues, so I'm sure you won't disappoint me for the first time here.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really ? I looked back at post #54 for the 2nd time and only saw a link and excerpt to the Harper govt getting the fossil award. I apologize if I'm missing something.[/b][waldo: you're referring to post #53... so ya, I accept your apology! Now explain how we can be presented with different post numbering... or really, really, really reach and read the post below your repeated reference; i.e., read what is labeled post #54 in my presentation... apparently one below your suggested post #54 in your presentation.]

I don't need you to read my mind as much as learning from the discussion, including discussions that bring the Liberal government's record into question. For someone who is so well versed in government misdeeds I am floored with you not remembering a discussion where the Liberals were the target.[/b] [waldo: I have no idea what you're talking about... the same as I have no idea of what you're speaking to in your earlier post suggesting "you did research"... again, I can't read your virtual mind]

My understanding is that targets were set much earlier than ratification happened and that the assessment others gave is that the Chretien Liberals did not take adequate steps to achieve those targets. [waldo: this makes no sense... the targets were the commitment targets agreed to as a part of the Kyoto negotiation... you can continue to derail this thread or you can actually substantiate your "assessment others gave" - your choice!]

I do not know, nor do I understand the specifics to any level of detail. I'm conveying analysis of press reports that came up in the 5 minutes of research I undertook last time. If you expect me to have those details at my fingertips, then I don't think it's too much for me to expect you to remember that that conversation even happened. [waldo: when I repeatedly asked you for your expectations... that had nothing to do with whatever the hell you claim to have come upon during your monumental 5 minutes! I'm asking you what you think should have been accomplished in the face of ratification requirements (with the provinces and business) while up against the obstructionist Harper.

I have no idea what conversation you're speaking to! Given you've taken up the charge... and without cause impugned my environmental chops with your slag comment, the onus is on you to state what conversation I had with you and provide linkage to that end. Well... if you think it's worthy of further thread derailing, hey!]

In the spirit of moving past this, perhaps you can just list the top three failures of Liberal governments with regards to the environment then. I look to you to educate me on environmental issues, so I'm sure you won't disappoint me for the first time here. [waldo: says the guy, you, charged with keeping threads on track... avoiding derails! [waldo: says you, the guy charged with keeping threads on track... attempting to prevent derails. That's you, right?]

Link to post
Share on other sites

waldo: you're referring to post #53... so ya, I accept your apology! Now explain how we can be presented with different post numbering... or really, really, really reach and read the post below your repeated reference; i.e., read what is labeled post #54 in my presentation... apparently one below your suggested post #54 in your presentation.[/color]]

It is post #55

waldo: this makes no sense... the targets were the commitment targets agreed to as a part of the Kyoto negotiation... you can continue to derail this thread or you can actually substantiate your "assessment others gave" - your choice![/color]]

How did we do against those targets under the Chretien government ?

waldo: says the guy, you, charged with keeping threads on track... avoiding derails! [waldo: says you, the guy charged with keeping threads on track... attempting to prevent derails. That's you, right?[/color]]

Yes, I suppose so. If I start another thread on this, will you answer the question ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because the claim is true. Canada's Kyoto FAIL started immediately after the Liberal government signed up through 2002 ratification, with no clue about how to plan or execute policy to meet the targets. Waiting until 2005 to magically begin "de-carbonizing" the economy was a plan to FAIL...the Conservatives just admitted the obvious and shut it all down. Liberal or Conservative...a massive Kyoto FAIL. [waldo: given Kyoto didn't come into 'force implementation' until 2005, that's quite the brazen claim you're making! Which is simply par for your course in regards to your long-running charade with Kyoto. You, the "fake-skeptic" guy, who has absolutely nothing positive to say about Kyoto, that it was a waste of time, that it accomplished nothing... yet somehow you find it quite enjoyable to lay down a brazillion posts always speaking to the "Canada Kyoto FAIL"! Granted, you have changed your tune somewhat after the waldo education that showed you exactly what the Harper Conservatives did (rather, didn't do)... at least now you're somewhat "equal opportunity" in dispensing your FAIL assessment across party lines!

of course, as I keep replying back to you... the real Kyoto FAIL is that of the U.S.! You know, again, all that influence the U.S. brought to bear in drafting the makeup of the treaty, of being the basis behind many countries agreeing to their respective targets. Yes sireeBob, the U.S. signs the treaty and then proceeds to back right out of it by failing to ratify it... walking away from the commitment it gave to the world community of nations engaged in Kyoto. That sir, that is the U.S. Kyoto FAIL... that is the Kyoto FAIL!]

Bob Mills was a Reform Party MP from Alberta who went to Kyoto with the government. He was in Johannesburg five years later when the country agreed to reduce emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels.

"If we ratify this thing we'll never hit our targets," Mills warned Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien at the time, because he was worried Canada's international reputation would take a hit. [waldo: :lol: ... that's heelarious! In the letter from Harper that I quoted/linked to here, this is what Harper has to say about "Bob Mills":]

For a long time, the Canadian Alliance stood virtually alone in opposing the Kyoto Accord, as Bob Mills, our senior environment critic, waged a valiant battle against it..

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is post #55 [waldo: it is post #54 in my presentation... would you like a screenshot? In any case, have you managed that monumental leap and actually read the post I'm referring to? Apparently so... since you have nothing to say about it, hey!]

How did we do against those targets under the Chretien government ? [waldo: you tell me... you're the one offering up no substantiation on any level. Notwithstanding, again, Kyoto didn't come into effect until 2005. Are you also confused about the timelines of Chretien versus Martin governance? Perhaps you should look at that and when formal ratification actually occurred... c'mon... get in the game, hey!]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Justin plan is to have input for all he has invited and when they arrive at the summit, he'll get their views of what should be done and if it can be accomplished in a reasonable time, this way, he has their views and when used , who is going to have anything negative to say, its their ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...