 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:22
|
|
|
 03-09-2002 09:59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
|  |
|
Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto
|
Tired of ads?
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/02/pm_kyoto020902
quote:
JOHANNESBURG - The Alberta government is steaming over a promise by the prime minister to ratify an agreement aimed at fighting global warming.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien told the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development that he will ask Parliament to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change before the end of the year.
That commitment was part of a speech Chrétien gave Monday morning in South Africa.
Parliament is almost certain to approve ratification because all opposition parties except the Canadian Alliance are in favour of the accord.
But Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor warned that Alberta is ready to fight the federal decision, even if it means going to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Taylor said Canada has the right to sign international treaties, but natural resources fall under provincial jurisdiction.
"We feel strongly it's a breach of trust because there's been no consultation on a plan," Taylor said.
Industry leaders in the oil- and gas-rich province say the agreement will severely harm their energy-based economy.
But several polls this year show most Albertans are in favour of the Kyoto accord. One poll, commissioned by the provincial government itself and released in June, suggests 72 per cent of people in Alberta want ratification.
And last week, a poll conducted for Greenpeace concluded that almost 60 per cent of Albertans surveyed wanted Chrétien to announce his intention to ratify the accord.
The prime minister has been under intense pressure from environmental groups since he said in an earlier speech he would "probably" sign the environmental agreement.
John Bennett of the Sierra Club said Canada would have missed a "historic opportunity" if the prime minister had failed to make his intentions known while in Johannesburg.
The United States has refused to sign the international agreement, which sets targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in an attempt to slow global warming. |
It's kinda funny how he doesn't see a problem with him promising the UN that Canada will ratify it and at the same time turning back to the Canadian provinces demanding a thorough investigation on the effects of Kyoto on the Canadian economy and telling them that he values their input and hasn't made his decision yet.
Thankfully the Alberta government (at the very least) will challenge this in national courts because resources are not under Ottawa's jurisdiction, but the province's, so they don't have any right to regulate what we do with them.
I think it also says a lot about just how much power Chretien has when all he has to do is "ask" parliament to do something and they will do it, since the party he's the leader of controls parliament. Too much power, I say, too much power!  I'd like to see a parliament full of independent minds who won't blindly vote for whatever their Fuhrer says, but hey, that's me...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I don't know, I don't see how it's the same thing. Kyoto is strictly about resource control, NAFTA is about free trade. Not the same thing.
And Alberta has benefitted greatly from NAFTA so it doesn't matter to us. |
Put on your rubber boots; the BS is piling up quickly in Alberta.
The Kyoto agreement is about pollution control, it is certainly not "strictly about resource control as Asher "My daddies an oil man" claims.
The Alberta government is also lying like mad. The Globe and Mail reported:
"[Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor] said there have been no consultations with the provinces, although the Kyoto accord has been the topic of intense federal-provincial discussions for years, most recently at a meeting of energy and environment ministers this spring in Charlottetown."
"That was not a consultation with particularly the energy-producing provinces," he said.
So what he saying is that Ottawa and the provinces have talked extensively, but there have been no consultations.
The Globe also reports: "Some months ago, Ottawa released a Kyoto implementation proposal consisting of four scenarios. Provinces, industry and the public were invited to submit comment, and one of the options is being revised in light of those comments."
So again, there was consultation, but Alberta lies and says there was no consultation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Put on your rubber boots; the BS is piling up quickly in Alberta.
The Kyoto agreement is about pollution control, it is certainly not "strictly about resource control as Asher "My daddies an oil man" claims. |
You seem to be under the impression that it doesn't have anything to do with resource consumption? Kyoto is about restricting the use of these resources to the point of reducing pollution.
Think about it for a while, Tingkai.
quote:
The Alberta government is also lying like mad. The Globe and Mail reported:
"[Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor] said there have been no consultations with the provinces, although the Kyoto accord has been the topic of intense federal-provincial discussions for years, most recently at a meeting of energy and environment ministers this spring in Charlottetown."
"That was not a consultation with particularly the energy-producing provinces," he said.
So what he saying is that Ottawa and the provinces have talked extensively, but there have been no consultations. |
Not quite, Tingkai darling. Energy and environmental ministers meeting isn't what Alberta wants, we want all of the Premiers to sit down at a table and talk about this, and ask why Ottawa refuses to do some real research on possible economic effects.
quote:
The Globe also reports: "Some months ago, Ottawa released a Kyoto implementation proposal consisting of four scenarios. Provinces, industry and the public were invited to submit comment, and one of the options is being revised in light of those comments."
So again, there was consultation, but Alberta lies and says there was no consultation.
|
The Prime Minister isn't lifting a finger. You're trying to act as if all of his subordinates meeting with the Premier's subordinates somewhat consistutes a sitdown meeting where the premiers and prime minister can all discuss the issue.
Typical Liberal spin, Tingkai.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
The Kyoto agreement is supported by the Progressive Conservatives, NDP, BQ and the Liberals. The only party opposing it are the loony tune Canadian Alliance. |
Oh, please.
The PCs, NDPs, and BQ are such minority partiess they shouldn't be included in a list of who is for and against it. And of course BQ is in favor of it, Hydropower is their energy industry. The NDPs are socialist and the Liberals are headed by a lame duck who wants to have a "legacy".
The party in charge (Liberals) are in favor for it, the official opposition (CA) are not.
Further, the Liberals have clearly displayed a complete lack of research for the matter and just want to plough through.
Are they really this stupid?
All of the large petroleum producing nations haven't signed it, except for now maybe Canada. There's plenty of oil outside of Canada in countries not under Kyoto for producers can get their oil, why would they continue exploring Canada for oil when they know they're going to be under a treaty which ties their hands behind their backs?
It's economic suicide for the energy industry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You seem to be under the impression that it doesn't have anything to do with resource consumption? Kyoto is about restricting the use of these resources to the point of reducing pollution.
Think about it for a while, Tingkai.
|
This may be too difficult for you to understand, but pollution can be controlled by reducing emissions without changing consumption.
As well, nowhere do I say that Kyoto does not affect resource consumption.
But we all know that Asher would prefer the good ol'days when people drove inefficient gas guzzling cars and trucks, the days when there were no pollution controls.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Not quite, Tingkai darling. Energy and environmental ministers meeting isn't what Alberta wants, we want all of the Premiers to sit down at a table and talk about this, and ask why Ottawa refuses to do some real research on possible economic effects.
|
No, what the Alberta government wants is no pollution controls. It wants to dictate the international agreements signed by Canada.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The Prime Minister isn't lifting a finger. You're trying to act as if all of his subordinates meeting with the Premier's subordinates somewhat consistutes a sitdown meeting where the premiers and prime minister can all discuss the issue.
|
Very good. There is indeed a difference between a meeting of ministers and a meeting between the Prime Minister and Premiers, but the difference is simply who is in attendence.
The environment ministers are quite capable of talking about Kyoto and transmitting the concerns back to their respective governments.
The Globe story mentions that the implementation plan was revised following public consultation.
The Albertan government is grasping for straws and lying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Most of them got back a couple weeks ago, Tingkai.
|
I think you are mistaken. Canada still has most of its army based overseas doing peacekeeping work. Perhaps you are thinking about the Afghanistan contingent, a small portion of the Canadian peacekeeping effort.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
This may be too difficult for you to understand, but pollution can be controlled by reducing emissions without changing consumption. |
Classic. This is almost good enough for my sig.
You do realize that the energy industry already uses effective pollution control techniques? Almost all of the plants in Alberta are modern and have low pollution compared to other countries. The problem is since 1990 we've greatly expanded in the QUANTITY of these plants, and thus emissions have risen. To reduce those, you must somehow do some magic to reduce emission on existing factories or you must shut some down.
quote:
But we all know that Asher would prefer the good ol'days when people drove inefficient gas guzzling cars and trucks, the days when there were no pollution controls. |
I've never said anything about that. I'm talking about signing a treaty whose only purpose is to drive away the energy industry from Canada into the other major oil-producing nations not affected by it.
quote:
No, what the Alberta government wants is no pollution controls. |
This is blatantly false, many times now Klein has come out in favor of alternative pollution controls. Kyoto isn't the only way to do it.
quote:
Very good. There is indeed a difference between a meeting of ministers and a meeting between the Prime Minister and Premiers, but the difference is simply who is in attendence. |
That's right. Ministers are told by the prime minister what to do, they want to be Good Little Boys so they can keep their post and get the public spotlight on them.
quote:
The Albertan government is grasping for straws and lying. |
Sounds like you are, Tingkai. The Alberta government never lied, not once have the province's premiers sat down with the PM to discuss it -- you take a quote out of context and then accuse others of lying.
Very, very typical.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
All of the large petroleum producing nations haven't signed it, except for now maybe Canada. There's plenty of oil outside of Canada in countries not under Kyoto for producers can get their oil, why would they continue exploring Canada for oil when they know they're going to be under a treaty which ties their hands behind their backs?
It's economic suicide for the energy industry. |
Business always claims that any pollution control will kill their industry. It hasn't happened yet, and in fact, pollution control laws have led to more efficient machines and the growth of a new industry.
The treaty does not "tie their hands behind their back." It simply requires them to reduce the amount of pollution they produce.
I suppose you want a world where industry is allowed to pollute no matter what the cost to the public.
We know that the reason you object to Kyoto is that it "might" reduce oil profits and that "might" make your family a bit poorer. You want money, regardless of the cost to the environment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Business always claims that any pollution control will kill their industry. It hasn't happened yet, and in fact, pollution control laws have led to more efficient machines and the growth of a new industry. |
!
Tingkai, nothing like Kyoto has ever been done before.
The LARGEST PRODUCING NATIONS, with lots of spare oil, have not signed something which not only forces us to halt growth in the industry, but CUT BACK to 1990 levels.
Meanwhile the COMPETING NATIONS are NOT under this treaty, and not only will benefit from a naturally increasing demand in the industry, but pick up where the oil coming from Alberta has dropped off.
You're just trading pollution coming from Alberta oil for pollution coming from Ecuadorian oil. What an accomplishment.
quote:
The treaty does not "tie their hands behind their back." It simply requires them to reduce the amount of pollution they produce. |
It doesn't tie their hands behind their back, it just forces them to abide by all kinds of restrictions which force them to cut back pollution levels to what they were 12 years ago despite a HUGE increase in the industry since then. No, that's not harming them at all...
quote:
We know that the reason you object to Kyoto is that it "might" reduce oil profits and that "might" make your family a bit poorer. You want money, regardless of the cost to the environment. |
You don't seem to understand the basic business of huge multinational oil companies. When you restrict them here, they're not going to **** around dealing with a government which has a history of screwing with oil companies -- they're going to look at alternate sources to save their bottom line.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
This is not an either-or/black-or-white question. There are many ways to reduce pollution. |
Do tell, Tingkai. How will all of these modern plants built after 1990 drastically reduce pollution? Alberta's production levels have more than doubled since 1990. There is no magic device which cuts the pollution associated with oil. There is a definite and obvious lack of consumption needed, and what's more for Alberta -- a lack of production.
quote:
Yeah, it is an international conspriacy and the "only purpose is to drive away the enerby industry from Canada."  |
No, it's just an international ****up of a treaty composed by treehuggers rather than someone with a clue about economics.
quote:
It is truly sad that you do not understand the basic Canadian system of a parliamentary cabinet. No Prime Minister is every a dictator and any political leader who acts like one will get the boot. |
Funny how you even try to say this. 69% of Canada believes the Liberals are corrupt, Chretien fired Paul Martin (who had enormous approval ratings) because he was talking about running against him, and Chretien's "friends" own the largest newspaper chain in Canada who fired columnists who criticized him.
quote:
Albertan government: "We were never consulted."
Ottawa: "We've talked about this a lot at federal-provincial meetings."
Albertan government: "Those discussions don't count because it was a discussion, not a consultation. In order to have a consultation, you have to specifically say that we are having a consultation. You can't just meet with us and talk about it. That's not fair."
|
Keep digging, Tingkai, the more quotes you take out of context the better...
You know as well as I do that ministers are simply pawns. Having a bunch of low level ministers meeting and talking about it doesn't do everyone much good when Chretien is blindly obsessed with having a "legacy".
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
|