 | Standard Offer Contracts - the Future for Renewable Generation? | The Oil Drum: Canada | The Round-Up: October 20th 2006 |  |
User login
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The key point in the Act will be, though not immediately obvious, that it creates a new category for substances, named "air pollutants". CO2 before was listed as as "toxin". Another move copied from Bush et al.
The Canadian constitution says Ottawa has no jurisdiction over the regulation of air pollutants. That means that any industry can, and many will, go to court if there is a regulation attempt. If Harper loses future elections, this will fall just as hard on the next government.
Ambrose has held substantial talks with industry, before the public was informed of anything. That in itself should say enough. But also, bien sur, these kinds of sleight-of-hands were the very reason to hold those talks. A framework was set up to let industries get off the hook, while set in language that would satisfy the public. They set it up to be this way. And it will succeed.
The term "intensity targets" is a cleverly worded concept that simply means growing industries can increase their emissions. Tar sands. Power generators. Car makers.
Nothing mentioned in the Clean Air Act will take effect before 2010 (I just see a headline that mentions half a century). By 2010 Canada will be between 40-45% over its Kyoto targets. Environment Commissioner Johanne Gélinas' report last month was damning. If she had pride, she would resign (no-one acts on her words anyway she's an empty shell), and raise a hell of a ruckus.
We are in a crucial phase at the moment. We either act now or shut up. The choice seems obvious, and it has been made for us behind closed doors.
It's not fair to just blame politicians. If they would go for real action, they would not be elected next time around. It's the people of Canada, who in word support Kyoto, but do so from behind the wheel of their vehicle, who are to blame. In that, the option of political influence, we still differ from the US, though not for long.
There are polls that put Kyoto support at 75%, and even higher in Québec. There are also polls that are not published and that tell parties how many votes they would lose if they try to push people out of their cars. The latter scare them more.
I personally think it goes much further. A quote from an as yet unpublished article of mine:
In ths same article I quote NDP and Green Party as well as the others, and there is not much there. They too want votes.
Canada had the highest per capita use of primary energy, and the highest CO2 emissions level, in the entire world. That's an accomplishment.
Canada is also arguably the country most affected by climate change, since the Arctic warms much faster than more southern regions. But Harper still calls global warming "an evolving science". He doesn't care that his kids and grandkids will never see a polar bear. He cares for power.
The real picture on an international level, which may even wake up some drowsy Canadians at home too, will emerge on November 6, when the Environment Minister of the worst polluting country on the planet, will chair the follow-up to last year's Montreal Kyoto conference, in Nairobi, Kenya.
Canada won't be a laughing stock, it'll be an embarrassment for all other signatories. And they'll let us know about it.
In case you haven't yet, read this on Harper's rise to power. It'll explain a lot.
And an Angus Reid poll that shows Candians don't trust their government to solve climate problems.
The biggest problem is theere is no alternative government that could be trusted to do it. We have become the US.
Harper heads a minority party that squeaked into power and has been declining in popularity ever since. Proposed legislation such as Clean Air is just another nail in the coffin because it's not what Canadians want and you know it.
'We have become the US' - is a dum statement and shocking to see on TOD Canada.
I think they want to keeo driving their cars and grow their economy. And that is not compatible with our Kyoto commitments.
Say Harper loses the next election. Which I doubt. W didn't lose his either, despite predictions. But alright, say he does. What will come in his place? Liberal Party? They spent 8 years saying, but not doing the right things.
NDP and Green Party are caught in the same conundrum: They may want to act, but can't, because it will cost them votes. So they end up saying really, really stupid things.
Canadians want to hear the green words (and hence get them from their "leaders"), but not act according to them (so the "leaders" don't do anything). Which suits everyone just fine except for the polar bears and the grandchildren. But then again, they don't vote, do they?
I live in a country that is fast flushing itself down the US drain. And if you find that shocking, I am sorry. For the country. And the polar bears and grandchildren.
Should the Conservatives choose not to stick to what has already been agreed, then they run the risk of not only damaging Canada's reputation but also the risk of losing power outright as all three opposition parties have stated that they will not support this Clean Air legislation.
That said... regardless of the party in charge and/or future legislation proposed, there's simply no way GHG targets of any kind in this country can be met without first addressing Canada's Cancer - the tar sands.
That's indeed the key point, as I understand it. I'll be interested to see if it's made by the MSM. What it means is that Canada can't do anything unilateral in this field. Consultation with the provinces and consultation with industry have to produce voluntary agreements in order for federal leadership to have any tangible benefits.
I suppose I should read the link!
I'm hoping that this will get ugly, but without much faith.
.
Some new vehicles sold in the rest of the USA (and Canada) can't be sold in these 5 states, though I have no idea how that works out in practice. Adding BC (4.6m) to the list could have more of an impact on the Canadian auto industry than on air quality. Would that be good policy?
It should go without saying that the federal-state division of powers is very different from what we have in Canada, but TOD Canada may have a few non-Canadian readers. Emissions from new vehicles in Canada are regulated under Canada's Environmental Protection Act and, incidentally, have been harmonized with US standards since 2004. The MSM seems to have missed this point too. Would separate provincial regulations be likely to stand a constitutional challenge?