Don't worry, be happy. The Harper government knows all about climate change and it's got that one covered according to Steve's Envirostooge Peter Kent.
Kent was reacting to a government report warning that climate change could cost Canadians 43-billion loonies a year by 2050 if our exalted Ruler doesn't pull his fundamentalist thumb out of his pudgy ass. Oh no, says Kent, pointing out that the government is committed, as in "in principle", to reducing Canada's greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by, oh say, maybe 2025 or somewhere thereabouts. Oh, don't worry, it's going to do something, sort of. Why it's even forking out $29-million a year right now to help Canadians adapt to climate change.
And besides, look at it as a stimulus package, a permanent stimulus package. The government will be covering at least some of that $43-billion a year, each and every year. Isn't that stimulus spending? But are the Tories serious? In case you have to ask, these two lines in the Montreal Gazette speak for themselves.
Kent has not yet introduced a plan to meet Ottawa's greenhouse gas emissions targets, let alone stop the growth of pollution.
Harper has said the government's focus remains on the economy and job creation.
3 comments:
Pathetic, isn't it? Some are even promoting the benefits of global warming for a cold country like Canada. Hey, there will be a longer growing season, and snowbirds will no longer have to fly south for the winter. Many just don't seem to realize that the new normal will be weather extremes, more heatwaves, more droughts, more floods, more blizzards, all costing big bucks. The jobs of the future are going to be in either green technology, or disaster management.
Yes, it is distressing what passes these days for government in Canada. That "longer growing season" line is a corker. Global warming won't be shifting the earth's axis which means it won't be changing sunshine patterns which means it won't significantly affect growing seasons. The north will warm but it's largely Canada Shield granite or tundra, neither of which is suitable for agriculture, at least not for a couple of thousand years.
This brings to mind the discussion on CBC radio the other day regarding the proposed pipe line to Kitimat. There was the positive side presented by Colin Kinsley and the negative presented by ..... can't remember his name. Neither they nor the host thought to ask a question or mention what would happen if an earthquake took place. if this project takes place, we won't need to worry about global warming at least not on that side of the country should an earthquake take it out.
Post a Comment