Bit by bit, Stephen Harper's real intentions about global warming are becoming clear.
He's now talking about "stabilizing emissions" rather than reducing Canada's GHG output and his boy, Baird, is falling back on "intensity based" solutions. Man, they're reading this straight out of George Bush's playbook.
Harper dismisses doing anything to actually reduce GHG emissions as "fantasy." Well, there, that puts an end to that debate, don't you think?
We've got a real, heel-dragger here folks. Stephen Harper won't say it but he's not about to do anything that might put a damper on the expansion of the Tar Sands, America's gas tank.
4 comments:
Stabilizing emmissions would be a massive improvement over what's happened since we signed Kyoto.
Being too aggresive would not work at all. People would quickly understand that there's no way to pull it off without destroying the economy, and abandon the project entirely. Setting realistic goals, on the other hand, could actually accomplish something useful.
We hear a lot about how Kyoto would "destroy the economy" and it sounds about as plausible as those who say global warming will bring apocalypse next year. Show us how this will destroy the economy, how the economy cannot adapt, perhaps even flourish under a GHG cap scenario. Oh, and please don't give me any nonsense from Exxon.
It's pretty obvious that cutting emissions too drastically would destroy the economy. No "showing" is necessary.
The real questions we should be asking are:
1. Just how much effect does reducing GHG have on the economy?
2. How much are the Canadian people willing to pay for GHG reduction?
It's a difficult balancing act. Being too aggressive could easily create a backlash amongst the Canadian public - people just aren't willing to spend $5/liter for gasoline, for example.
One real flaw of environmental advocates is that they rarely talk about successes. It's always doom, doom, doom - everything's going to hell in a handbasket. I believe they are hurting their own cause, because eventually the public tunes out and gives up.
If we set our goals too aggresively then failure is assured - people will just say "what's the use? It's hopeless." If we set them realistically then we have a chance at success, and that will encourage people to take the next step.
Rabbit, it's pretty obvious you have nothing to demonstrate your alarm about destroying the economy. You're just pulling this out of your backside. Why don't you tell me just how far we can go before we destroy the economy? You've seized onto this idea that tackling GHG is cataclysmic, now do show us or leave off, please?
Post a Comment