Tories would turn back Kyoto
Last Updated: Friday, January 13, 2006 | 9:39 AM ET
Harper said Kyoto's emission targets couldn't be met within Canada or even internationally. He pointed to the country's woeful record on climate change since the agreement was signed in 1997.
"The Kyoto accord will not succeed at achieving its objectives..."
(WesternGrit: When I set a goal/target for, let's say weight loss, I don't say I'm not going to set a target because I can't achieve it - that's against the very nature of goal-setting itself. If we never set targets we wouldn't have this great society we live in today. For Harper to argue that we won't even TRY to reach a target because it is [in his narrow opinion] unachievable is something he needs to be taken to task on. It is a pathetic cop-out to the oil industry. A pullout from Kyoto at this point would hurt the agreement and environments worldwide. Most of the World is currently a signatory. Very few nations are not. In order to get the remaining few dregs on-side we need to set a good example, and we need to push the biggest polluters - our "best friends" to the South).
Harper always spouted about Kyoto being unrealistic. All we ever heard during the election and the past few months especially (ever since the Environment got on the map as a vote-losing issue for the Harpies) was about how the Liberals were surpassed by Bush in greenhouse gas reduction (oh, he was very careful not to criticize Kyoto). Hmmm... wonder if the Americans beating us in some areas has anything to do with this: The US is by far the worst polluter in the world, many times worse than Canada. Couple that with the fact that a LOT of America's most polluting industries have jumped to countries like Mexico and China, while Canada's resource-based industry remains here - often exploited by American companies (like Big Oil). Our oil industry wouldn't just pack up and leave - while a lot of factories and manufacturing plants have vacated the US in the past decade. Any laws passed by a government to battle consumer/institutional pollution would scarcely make a dent in Canada - while in the US the exact same - or even lesser legislation would have a much bigger impact. This is due to the nature of the main polluters in each country. Here in Canada it is Big Oil and some other resource industries, while in the US individual consumers are a huge part of the equation. What Harper effectively has been doing is helping Alberta build a firewall around the oil industry, using any breath he had to protect big oil (along with a lot of help from oil lobbyists), while criticizing any efforts made by former Liberal governments - knowing full well that he and his oil-lobbyist friends, and Ralph Klein, and Danny Williams (both loyal conservatives) would have all conspired to create a national crisis had the Liberal governments done ANYTHING that even suggested some regulation in the pollution-rich oil sector. As a campaigner in Alberta, all one ever hears is hateful, vindictive statements about the Liberals and the NEP - as if it is some sort of "pre-emptive strike" in case voters even think of voting Liberal.)
Remember what a great statesman (Albert Gore) said about the Harper Government's motivation:
Renata D'Aliesio and Katherine Monk, Calgary Herald; CanWest News ServicePublished: Thursday, January 26, 2006
Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.
"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests."
(WesternGrit: To successfully do our part in stopping global warming and climate change we will need to face challenges in our oil/resource sectors. We Canadians need to have the cajones to take the leap and decide to impose earth-saving regulations on these sectors, as well as continue with efforts our past Liberal governments made in the environment. The choice is ours to make)