I just want to thank Lorrie Goldstein for his column this morning - What Did You Decide, Dion?
At first I thought he was going to talk about whether or not the opposition will attempt a motion of non-confidence since the recently-announced environmental policy is a "scam".
But no, Lorrie was referring to the Liberal ad where Dion is celebrated as having "led 182 countries to a long-term agreement to fight climate change."
The actual meeting results were a bit more sketchy according to Robert Henson's account in The Rough Guide to Climate Change. Goldstein does give credit to Dion for keeping the meeting process from falling apart. But what else did Stephane Dion accomplish as Environment Minister, other than running meetings with flair and watching "Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increase at almost twice the rate of the U.S."?
I can't think of a thing.
But that's not actually why I'm so grateful to Lorrie for this morning's editorial. The real reason is that he finally deciphered what Dion said in the end of the commercial as he triumphantly pounds his gavel on the desk to the thunderous applause of those around him. - "Decided".
I honestly thought he said "Silence". Silly me.
Thanks Lorrie.
32 comments:
The fact is that the Liberals had 3 majorities between 1993 and 2004 and could have enacted the necessary legislation and regulations to achieve the climate change targets agreed to under the Kyoto protocol, but they did not. Even after 2004 in, when they were reduced to a minority, they would have received the support of the Bloc and NDP to pass the necessary legislation, but they did "nothing"
Now that the Conservative govt has announced climate change and pollution regulations that goes further than any regulation ever enacted in Canada or the United States, the Liberals are screaming with indignation. That is what I call hypocrisy at the highest level.
The Liberal comercial is meaningless. That conference was a big farce. Nothing meaningful was achieved other than having delegates from 182 countries attend a conference. No new agreements were made, no measures to combat climate change were approved or agreed upon. So in reality, it was nothing more than a big photo opportunity for the delegates who attended.
TangoJuliette sez:
The conference in Montreal was the one where Kermit Dion earned Canada's first Fossil Award from the freeloading 10,000 "delegates." This free-loading binge cost Cdn tax-victims around $40,000,000 (that's forty million bux) if memory serves correctly. That's a lot of free booze for ten thousand leeches. Hell, after a week partying at that level, they probably would have signed an agreement ratifying that Dion was DeGaulle's bastard love-child, and in fact, Steffi, just like daddeegaulle, could also walk on water. Clean water, that is.
Interestingly enough, the Cdn Liberals had enough clout with hung-over delegates at the summer '06, Naiorobi Conference, to arrange to get Rona Ambrose nailed with the Fossil award as well. Imagine, it took a Conservative Minister, Female to boot, less than six months on the job, to receive the same international recognition that it took unilingual Dion 6 or 7 years to get.
So now we see the true nature of the Liberals coming to the surface. Nixonia skullduggery with the Mark & Marlene Fools, running lap-dogs of yankee De-mock-ratz imperialism, always glad to hold the big fat, greasy, tahuggish looking bully's coat.
lemme get meself a cuppa, and then I might tell you just how I REALLY feel.
ciao!
luv, Hogs and kisses,
tj
typos. e.&o.e.
I really got it wrong then Jo,
I thought he said,
Supercalafrajalisticexpealadocious
Boy,is my face red.
==
About that Liberal ad, with Dion banging the gavel. Shouldn't there be a disclaimer at the bottom along the lines of: "This is a dramatic re-enactment of actual events at the conference. All the people seen behind Mr. Dion are actors. Not even Liberal MPs would stand up and clap for Dion, let alone hung-over foreign delegates"
"Dion is good at running"....from the truth???
Anyway, I found this website on the net, and for some fun, you can test your ecological footprint.
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/index.html
My results made me laugh. Because I'm a meat eater, I guess, it will take 8+ planets to sustain my life.
Oh well....let's see there are 9 in our solar system, and probably others that we don't know about. If necessary, maybe I can 'borrow' planets from another solar system, sort of like "planet" trading a la "carbon" trading....then, all should be well. :-)
raz
Platty, lol! He is a bit hard to understand at times. ;)
I was wondering the same thing - what had Dion said? Now I know, thanks to Mr. Goldstein & you.
In light of Dr. Suzuki's lambasting of Minister Baird's new plan, I reread some files I had on the Suzuki Foundation. Here are some excerpts:
http://tinyurl.com/2fzrmo
«News Releases
Canada wins Fossil Award at U.N. climate change summit.
Nov 04, 1999
BONN - Canada was among a small number of nations to receive a "Fossil Award" for its persistent advocacy of nuclear reactors as a climate change solution, the David Suzuki Foundation noted with regret as the U.N.'s climate change summit wound down today.»
Who was in power? Yep, the Liberals with a majority.
http://tinyurl.com/wjkre
«News Releases
Canada wins Fossil award
Nov 14, 2000
THE HAGUE - Canada has again earned international black marks for its controversial negotiating stance at the UN Climate Summit. Each day environmental organizations from around the world unite to elect a country that is beong the most obstructive in the climate negotations.
Today, Canada and the US were joint first-place winners of the "Fossil of the Day" award.»
Who was in power? Yep, again, the Liberals.
http://tinyurl.com/yuemlk
«News Releases
Canada’s climate change plan lacks teeth
April 13, 2005
OTTAWA – Canada’s climate change plan lets big polluters off the hook and doesn’t send a strong message to industry that our economy must become cleaner and more efficient to compete in the global marketplace, says the David Suzuki Foundation.
“The plan is incomplete and it has some major flaws, but at least we now have a plan,” said Dale Marshall, the Suzuki Foundation’s Ottawa-based policy analyst. “The government now needs to urgently move on emission reductions and ‘learn by doing.’”
Released in Ottawa today, the federal government’s plan lacks detailed targets and timelines and offers no criteria to measure success or failure."»
And who was the Environment Minister? Yep, Mr. Dion.
Notice that Suzuki was willing to allow - in 2005 - there was a plan, flawed, but a start. No similar allowance for Baird's.
http://tinyurl.com/2ysjyp
«News Releases
Canada joins US and Russia as worst G8 climate change performers
July 04, 2005
OTTAWA – Canada’s record on climate change puts Prime Minister Martin in an awkward position at this week’s G8 summit, according to a new scorecard by the David Suzuki Foundation.
The G8 Scorecard, released today in Ottawa, ranks Canada worst or second worst in energy consumption, energy intensity, low-impact renewable energy, and greenhouse gas emissions, joining Russia and the U.S. as the most wasteful and polluting G8 countries.»
And who was still Environment Minister? Yep, gavel-banger Mr. Dion.
This doesn't surprise me about Dion. After all, didn't his hero, Gore, say that he invented the Internet?
Gabby, thanks for all that. You are a fount of information.
That fossil award is a disgusting way to try to coerce compliance by humiliation.
It seems to me that pride is a big issue here. Are we doing all this stuff to be seen to be a good world citizen, or are we doing it to safeguard the future of our children?
Gore, say that he invented the Internet?
No, that claim was itself an invention of his political opponents. Just another urban legend. It says:
"he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic). "
The fact is that the Liberals had 3 majorities between 1993 and 2004 and could have enacted the necessary legislation and regulations to achieve the climate change targets agreed to under the Kyoto protocol, but they did not.
The fact is that they did enact necessary legislation, as "gabby in qc" describes. The legislation was made under minority conditions, hence the suzuki foundation saying in April 2005 that it does not go far enough.
During the period 1993 to 2004 the Liberals had majorities, but at the beginning of that time there was no Kyoto protocol at all, and it was only in November 2004 that all the requirements were met (after the Russians ratified) for the Kyoto Protocol to come into force on February 16, 2005.
The Kyoto Protocol was never in effect during a Liberal majority government.
Well! I guess we've been told!
Joanne,
Dion needs to drop the level of rhetoric. It isn't Baird and Harper increasing the decibel levels, it is the LPC and their cadre of environmental activists that are giving the media the juicy sound bites. They pitch and the media is glad to catch.
Dion called it a "scam". That is pretty sad coming from the man who would be PM. He knows it's a glass half full. His full glass would have destroyed our economy, bloated our government and made some carbon brokers very wealthy without helping the earth one iota.
I have begun questioning M. Dion's integrity,
Tomm
So is running a meeting (which is dubious in this instance in the first place), the same as running a country? Focus people focus. (real conservative)
As always, Joanne, thank you for allowing me to post such lengthy comments, with my penchant for references.
Liberal Supporter said:
"The fact is that they did enact necessary legislation, as "gabby in qc" describes. The legislation was made under minority conditions, hence the suzuki foundation saying in April 2005 that it does not go far enough."
Sorry to say, but you missed the point.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.html
"Canada was one of the first countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol, on April 29, 1998. Formal ratification came more than four years later – on Dec. 17, 2002."
The protocol was signed in '98 when they were in majority position, yet the Liberals sat on their hands until 2005.
And since you're debunking urban legends, here's another one that needs debunking. Mr. Harper has been accused of being a climate change denier, yet on Tues. Dec. 10, 2002, this is the question he asked in QP (item #1415). Remember that Mr. Harper was out of Parliament from '97 to '01, and became leader of the Alliance only in May 2002.
http://tinyurl.com/27w4r4
«Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister is recklessly pushing forward with ratification of his Kyoto legacy. He will be committing Canada to massive CO2 reductions without a clear and complete plan for these made in Japan targets.
The Prime Minister said that he will retire in February 2004. I have a very straightforward question. Could the Prime Minister tell the House, by February 2004, what interim targets will the government have met for Kyoto and how much will those measures cost?»
In other words, Mr. Harper has always been concerned about the costs involved in the full implementation of Kyoto & how it could negatively impact the Canadian economy. From '98 to '02, the Liberals STILL had no plans for implementing Kyoto, and they finally slapped something together only in '05.
Dion needs to drop the level of rhetoric. It isn't Baird and Harper increasing the decibel levels, it is the LPC and their cadre of environmental activists that are giving the media the juicy sound bites.
Tomm, they smell blood. Call me a skeptic but truth really doesn't seem to matter in politics, does it? Just get your opponent when he's down, so you can get into power.
I should probably take some time off from blogging soon because I'm getting quite disgusted with the lot of them.
The only point I want to make is that John Baird showed remarkable restraint after being sidelined by Suzuki and Gore.
I mean, wasn't it the U.S. that was so indignant when Paul Martin took them to task for not signing onto Kyoto even though our GHG emissions were significantly higher? We were told to stick to our own knitting in so many words?
Pull-eeze.
Yes, we ratified it in 2002, but it was still not in force. It was looking doubtful that it would ever come into force. When the Russians signed, then the conditions for coming into force were in place.
If you say they should have done more, even though it was not in force, fair enough. I look at it more like when a treaty is signed ending a war. They keep shooting right up to the minute the treaty comes into force. The day Kyoto came into force worldwide should have been a big event. Instead, Stephen Harper on that day wanted to talk about traditional marriage.
Your quote about Stephen Harper in 2002 wanting to know about the costs of Kyoto does not negate that he has been a climate change resister. Whether you accept the science or not, it is certainly reasonable to look at the costs.
As always, Joanne, thank you for allowing me to post such lengthy comments, with my penchant for references.
Gabby, you are more than welcome. I appreciate your encyclopedic contributions. I'll be interested to see what Liberal Supporter says.
I received a very nice note from a most esteemed source saying that he appreciated this blog for high level of debate and general lack of name-calling.
I can only thank you guys, the readership, for that. I am so glad not to have to use comment moderation etc, other than when I'm away to avoid a spam plague. Thanks for that and for everyone being grown-ups here. It's you guys that make this fun for me.
The day Kyoto came into force worldwide should have been a big event. Instead, Stephen Harper on that day wanted to talk about traditional marriage.
L.S. Could you please refresh my memory on that one? What time frame are we talking about? Thanks.
February 16, 2005
I think it was 90 days after the last ratification by Russia in November 2004.
I happened to find the Stephen Harper speech on that day googling for something else. Of course I am being a snark to mention it. I could not find anything else for that day, so it is likely the government kind of ignored it too.
February 16, 2005
O.K. Thanks. Well that was building up to the big vote in June, if I recall correctly. That was a huge issue at the time, so I don't really see why Harper not mentioning Kyoto was a big deal.
"I received a very nice note from a most esteemed source ..."
Well, now you've really piqued my curiosity ...
And as for my "encyclopedic contributions" - isn't Google WONDERFUL!
Remember, Joanne: Tomorrow is PM Harper's birthday.
Happy Birthday, Mr. PM
Gabby, thanks for reminding me! That's an important date.
I am working on my "present" for Steve right now (tax return!)
LS has promoted Harper to a 'climate change resistor'! Really LS...he's only human..he can't hold back clouds or make snow any better than the rest of us.And those jet streams...way out of his league!
LS, just out of curiosity, was there any particular reason why the Liberals, having signed Kyoto in 1997 (during majority) would not take action? What was preventing them from doing anything?
Was there any particular reason to wait until Kyoto was ratified? Were they hoping that the Protocol would collapse and they would never be required to take action? Did Kyoto have to be ratified for them to take action?
Your explanation rings hollow.
Joanne,
Baird was remarkably cool. Incredible restraint. I saw Suzuki getting a little tight, but not Baird. On QP Baird sailed right past Tabor's questions like he was swatting a particularly slow fly.
In regards to the demeanor of comments on blogs; I mostly post at RT and the regulars keep the level of vitriol under control if I comment on it.
I think its the blood smell in the water. Political partisans are pack animals and sometimes they go a little nutty, like the LPC convention last year.
The LPC is in major trouble. They have a leader they can't sell and an arrogant attitude that just doesn't quit. What makes them think that Mark Holland, Denis Coderre, or Scott Reid is an asset to their PR?
In addition, they have abandoned their touted "high road" and Dion is now using words like scam, blackmail,and bribery.
After 2 good weeks they are already getting the Red Star to send out feelers for an election.
I think they'll get stomped, but even if they do, they can use it to dump Dion.
Happy Birthday Mr. Prime Minister.
Tomm
Tomm, can you imagine the LPC in power again with Coderre as Defence Minister, which is plausible since he is the critic?
It just makes me nauseous.
mac: I commented at RT's about this. He mentioned the US not ratifying. Here is most of what I said:
I think the US reneging did take a lot of the wind out of everyone's sails. Like it or not, this problem is a prime candidate for good old yankee ingenuity, and without it we will not make a lot of headway under normal conditions. It will not be something you can get industry behind without a situation like today where the general public is putting a lot of pressure on to do something, and the rest of the world is doing something. Five years ago, the general public was seeing some warmer weather, but not noticeable enough to cause panic. Now everything is caused by global warming. Eventually the pendulum will settle in the middle where we simply work on the problem diligently, knowing there is a number of years breathing space.
There was a good possibility that there might be a change of government in the US in 2004. Had that happened, you might have seen the US unleashed on this. Then we would doing what we do best, supporting the effort. We're the Canadarm people, we're not the best at the really heavy lifting, but we provide advanced technology and innovation. The US can just smother a problem with scientists and engineers, and take the shotgun approach to researching everything. We work well with them, working in specific defined areas that we become the experts in.
To me, it is like any procrastination. You don't decide to do nothing for seven years, you put things off a bit a a time. First we wait for the US to ratify since it would not be the first time they agreed to something then Congress does not ratify. Then we decide to sign anyway, since other countries are signing. Then we wait for the others to sign. I don't recall for sure, but I think there were various points at which it looked like Russia might sign, before they actually did. There were things like Energy Star, EnerGuide and One Tonne Challenge, good in themselves, which keep the ball rolling, but you can't really start demanding expensive emission cuts until everyone is on board.
Thanks, LS. Don't you find the current Liberal outrage to be a bit overdone?
They had their chance; they didn't "get it done" to quote Iggy and now they're snarling at the Tories who want to improve the environment but don't want to sell the farm to do so.
Perhaps part of this anger is because they realize they dropped the ball?
Post a Comment