It seems now that the former environment minister has been sacked due to poor public response to the Conservative environmental plan, and Dion has just given a big speech in TO regarding how he wants Canada to be on track with Kyoto, have pollution credits, lead the world in environmentally sustainable technologies and so forth, the Conservatives are scrambling to get some sort of credibility for their environment plan. It will be interesting to see whether or not they revamp it, or to buy votes just say the gst will be reduced by 1% again.
Ambrose got sacked for doing exactly what Harper told her to do. Nothing. Now we've got Baird, who was largely responsible for the Accountability Act that Chiquita mentioned in another post. BTW, both Harper and Baird have already broken federal law according to that act.
It'll be more gestures and lip service than actual action, regarding the environment, until someone who actually gives a damn is in charge. I know Dion has been environment minister before, so I hope that means he would make it a priority and isn't just shovelling out what the public wants to hear.
When you look at how well the Green party did last election, approx 600,000+ votes and how much attention the environment is getting the in news I beleive that is a trend to reckon with. Any party that does not make the environment a major commitment on the campaign platform does so at their peril. For the conservatives, the must show they're strong for the environment BEFORE an election, else voters will not go for them.
I personally feel that the current concern for the environment is a rerun of the 1980s..."it is cool to be green", some minor changes will be made, some major promises will be made, but in the end the economic and politic norms of complacency will remain. Our collective Canadian head is still stuck in the sand with regards to the environment.
I watched the CTV morning news, which announced Harpers new green initiative that will provided funding to alternative energy production over the next ten years. CTV news reported that the amount of funding provided this year is substanitally less (talking millions) than what Harper removed from the former Liberal program over a year ago.
I can understand your pessimism. However, I do think that in the 80's it was a cool factor and there really wasn't widespread reporting of the issue surrounding the environment. People were call tree huggers etc. Today, the story's quite different, there is a mass of scientific data regarding global warming etc, and people today are much more aware of these issues than in the 80's. If the green party were around in the 80's (i'm not sure it was or wasn't) they would not have gotten 600,000+ votes like that did last election.
The Buzz is from the spin doctors of the conservatives, I beleive people now care very much about their environment, polluted lakes rivers etc retrict our freedom.
Again, if the conservatives don't put substantial amounts into their environmental plan NOW, they will fail in the next election.
I think you had your head in the sand in the eighties!! The NDP was the original "green party" in Canada. I think the NDP track record attests to that. The Green Party of Canada was established federally 1996 (provincially 1983 in some provinces), and has had subsequent internal issues that despite its gaining popularity has not been able to maintain cohesiveness within the party, most notably the separation of the Green Party of Manitoba in 2005. The Green Party of Saskatchewan ignored the federal policies of its party and ran its own local policies which contradicted some of its party's federal policies. In addition, the Green Party has not been able to really maintain infrastructure between elections. The Green Party funding is non existent and is primarily funded by Wayne Crookes, a BC businessman through the Green Party of British Columbia. One could question the intentions of a party that has one substantial donor. In the last federal election, Green Party was only able to secure 4.5 % of the total vote and without representation in parliment...proof that Canadian are concern with the environment.
In the last election, based on the policy platform on its web site, the party was right wing on social and fiscal policy ... both the Sierra Club and Green Peace rated them below the NDP (and in most categories, below the Bloc) on environmental policies. And don't get me started on Jim Harris, the former right winger turned environmentalist who had crappy ill formed policies of: enhanced food banks to end poverty; volunteerism instead of funding social programs; rejection of strong environmental laws and strong enforcement in favour of so-called "voluntary compliance" by corporate polluters. The policies should have been ridiculed. They were badly thought out, and clearly contradictory of the Charter of the Global Greens which the party supposedly has adopted as its guiding principles in 2004. Harris was really only concerned about running as many candidates as possible in order to secure the Green franchise status and $$$.
No amount of promises or action taken by the Tories will result in any long term changes for improved environmental health as the programs will be barely implemented before the next election is called. The bottom line for most Canadians is the economy and until improving the environment is presented as a captial gain for the average Canadian, there will be no substanial improvement in it. The mighty loonie wins.
***** The Green Party of Canada role modeled itself and adopted the United States Green Party's Ten key principles. It has not had a strong presence in the Global Greens Conferences or its constitution/principles of ecological wisdom, social justice, particpatory democracy, nonviolence, sustainability, and respect diversity. Should one take a party seriously that models itself of US environmental friendliness? I think most Canadians assume our Green Party is like the European Green Party, which has much successes..it is simply not.
Has the Green party been able to demonstrate in concrete terms that it would be able to make effective environmental changes without damaging the economy? Are its policies really helping the environment or is just a lot of smoke for the lazy voter who tries to do good?
Any major change is going to have reprocussions in the economy. While trying to mitigate the the negative effects on business we should not stop trying to come up with new initiatives. Frankly, I beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread. Solar power etc. All the other major countries require emission standards! Why not canada? Make the environment fiscally linked to companies bottom line. Have government run waste centres where business had to put their waste and pay for its storage. This would then force companies to reduce their waste, and finally send executives to jail for polluting! Just fining the company will not change anything as the company will just place it under the expenses of operation.
No amount of promises by ANY party will result in long term improved environmental health before the next election. However, the way to go would be tax cuts or rebates for energy efficient home heating and electricity. Something substantial for the average canadian! Or send teams to other countries to research what they are doing for the environment. This has worked in the past.. japan modernized itself in a VERY short time doing the same thing. It send learned experts to all the western powers to learn from them, take ideas home and incorporate them into the Japanese nation.
As far as the green party is concerned, I have never said they would make a good ruling party, but i want to see one green constituency so that the leader, good or bad, can take part in leader debates. Different voices mean a better chance at change.
By your post, it is obvious this issue is very important to you so why do you campaign?
After watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and being impacted by the documentary, you stated and I'll paraphrase " I'm definitely joining the Green Party now". My posts were merely gaging your resolve to join the party and your commitment to the environment; to see whether or not, you were serious or if it was a momentary reaction that soon fell to passivity.
You really should campaign, because you gave such a political answer Meaning, you didn't answer. That's OK. As far as I'm concerned, my committment to the environment, and my resolve to joining the Green party are two different issues, which it seems you are lumping together. At this moment in time, my committment to the environment is still there. And I will still vote for the Green Party for reasons I have stated before and for the other reason they are the only party that has stated they want to reduce instances of cancer by 15%.
It is interesting how you apply Buzz to this topic. Sure I was affected by the documentary, because Gore's use of scientific studies and data back up the his theory. There was a prominant protestant who stated that whenever I come across an idea or theory that better explains something gladly will I incorporate that into my own worldview. Though in this case I beleived there was a global warming problem before watching an inconvenient truth, it just further reinforced it. As for my joining the green party, I am still serious about it.
It was not a political answer...let me make it easier for you "Yes!" For the lack of factual and logical/rant free responses, it seemed simpler to addresses the environment and the Green Party together, however, I would be happy to discuss the issues separately. Although, you cannot really look at the Green Party too deeply without discussing the environment as it is their main platform.
Environment: From your post dated 01-19-2007... "the way to go would be tax cuts or rebates for energy efficient home heating and eletricity."
Not a new idea, municipalities already offer rebates for energy efficient items such as: water heaters, furnaces, bathroom fixtures, toilets, appliances such as washer/dryers, and fridges/stoves.
"Make the environment fiscally linked to companies bottom line. Have government run waste centres where business had to put their waste and pay for its storage. This would then force companies to reduce their waste, and finally send executives to jail for polluting! Just fining the company will not change anything as the company will just place it under the expenses of operation"
Won't they put it into their operation expenses anyway? They are certainly not going to suck up the cost. Where do you draw the line of responsibility..the boss or the suck that they are going to use as an escape goat for their bad actions?
"Or send teams to other countries to research what they are doing for the environment. This has worked in the past.. japan modernized itself in a VERY short time doing the same thing. It send learned experts to all the western powers to learn from them, take ideas home and incorporate them into the Japanese nation"
I agree that Japan has practically destroyed itself through air, soil, and water pollution. What changes did Japan make and is there any significant statistical improvement in environmental quality?
"beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread.Solar power etc."
What personal changes have you made in your life to help the environment?
Green Party:
In my post of -01-19-2007, I addressed a (albeit brief) historical track record of the Green Party of Canada, including the weak and right winged governing policies of the party. No rebuttal was offered on your part on how the party policies had possibly improved since the replacement of Jim Harris with Elizabeth May or even how the international Greens have aided the party.
Your primary claim to support the Green Party is that you wanted to see "one green constituency so that the leader, good or bad, can take part in leader debates. Different voices mean a better chance at change." I find this logic flawed, what good is another right winged leader masking as an environmentalist really going to improve the debates?
Your secondary claim to support the Green Party of Canada is that "they are the only party that has stated they want to reduce instances of cancer by 15%. " True. The introduction of Gardasil will have done that in one generation... wow and they did not even lift a finger.
It was not a political answer...let me make it easier for you "Yes!" For the lack of factual and logical/rant free responses, it seemed simpler to addresses the environment and the Green Party together, however, I would be happy to discuss the issues separately. Although, you cannot really look at the Green Party too deeply without discussing the environment as it is their main platform.
So, my reasoning is based on a lack of facts and logic and full of rants. Curious, where did I ‘Rant’?
Environment: From your post dated 01-19-2007... "the way to go would be tax cuts or rebates for energy efficient home heating and eletricity."
Not a new idea, municipalities already offer rebates for energy efficient items such as: water heaters, furnaces, bathroom fixtures, toilets, appliances such as washer/dryers, and fridges/stoves.
I was referring to home heating specifically, I am well aware of the appliance rebates. To date the rebates for adding solar power to your home are negligible. And when it costs $30,000 Canadian after taxes to have one’s home virtually off the grid a rebate as well must be substantial. It will get to that point though, as electricity rates become more and more expensive. Same with geothermal heating. There is a company here in KW that does geothermal heating, what if there were some kind of rebate for new homes for putting this heating and cooling system in?
Won't they put it into their operation expenses anyway? They are certainly not going to suck up the cost. Where do you draw the line of responsibility..the boss or the suck that they are going to use as an escape goat for their bad actions?
To a degree yes companies will factor these into their budgets, but when offered a way to cut their waste to save money, companies will do that. Companies look at the bottom line and if induced enough they will change. We just need to have a government that will take that step. Drawing the line for responsibility? Ultimately responsibility lies with the CEO. Look at Enron and Worldcom cases, though they deal solely with these companies and their unrealistic worth and going bankrupt, the same logic should apply for polluting companies.
"Or send teams to other countries to research what they are doing for the environment. This has worked in the past.. japan modernized itself in a VERY short time doing the same thing. It send learned experts to all the western powers to learn from them, take ideas home and incorporate them into the Japanese nation"
I agree that Japan has practically destroyed itself through air, soil, and water pollution. What changes did Japan make and is there any significant statistical improvement in environmental quality?
My point with Japan referred to an act as a result of a political will to change, not specifically to its environmental record. Japan went from a feudal system to a modernized one in less than 40 years. As for Japan’s environmental record, it is atrocious. But, this concept can be used for the environment. If only there were a political will to learn how other countries are dealing with the environment in practical terms, not theoretical then we would be shown alternatives.
"beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread.Solar power etc."
What are you talking about in terms of revenue? Yes.
What personal changes have you made in your life to help the environment?
Reduction of heating while away from home. We attempt to limit use of dryer when doing laundry. Recycle as much as we can (though that process is not perfect, not our attempt, but the system at large). Re-use as much as we can. We have one car, with no plans to get a second one. The car we do have is maintained appropriately to not only increase its life, but to make it as efficient as possible.
Green Party:
In my post of -01-19-2007, I addressed a (albeit brief) historical track record of the Green Party of Canada, including the weak and right winged governing policies of the party. No rebuttal was offered on your part on how the party policies had possibly improved since the replacement of Jim Harris with Elizabeth May or even how the international Greens have aided the party.
Your primary claim to support the Green Party is that you wanted to see "one green constituency so that the leader, good or bad, can take part in leader debates. Different voices mean a better chance at change." I find this logic flawed, what good is another right winged leader masking as an environmentalist really going to improve the debates?
I never offered any rebuttal regarding how they’ve improved their platform, because quite frankly, my goal is as you’ve said. The effect of 600,000 + votes for the green party is that the main parties, which will most likely always rule, have taken notice and have made the environment a key running platform. Both the liberals and the conservatives. They realize that support for alternative parties will only increase if they do nothing. So, from that standpoint, and from the ultimate goal of having government address the environment, I don’t feel my logic is flawed. Regardless of whether or not I know every facet of the green party platform, I am voting for them, because symbolically, I am making a statement to the main parties.
Your secondary claim to support the Green Party of Canada is that "they are the only party that has stated they want to reduce instances of cancer by 15%. " True. The introduction of Gardasil will have done that in one generation... wow and they did not even lift a finger.
I have no idea what Gardasil is. I am very wary of chemical fix to our cancer problems. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure…
I was referring to home heating specifically, I am well aware of the appliance rebates. To date the rebates for adding solar power to your home are negligible. And when it costs $30,000 Canadian after taxes to have one’s home virtually off the grid a rebate as well must be substantial. It will get to that point though, as electricity rates become more and more expensive. Same with geothermal heating. There is a company here in KW that does geothermal heating, what if there were some kind of rebate for new homes for putting this heating and cooling system in?
Then don't say electricity if you mean only heating. It is not feasible for any government to spend millions of dollars on promoting personal electric systems that are costly, require extensive operating knowledge in terms of hazardous material and electrical safety. Let alone the cost of inspectors to ensure the safety of the community (ie fire, UV radiation, illegal disposal of battery cells).
My point with Japan referred to an act as a result of a political will to change, not specifically to its environmental record. Japan went from a feudal system to a modernized one in less than 40 years. As for Japan’s environmental record, it is atrocious. But, this concept can be used for the environment. If only there were a political will to learn how other countries are dealing with the environment in practical terms, not theoretical then we would be shown alternatives.
oh, so to your knowledge they have done nothing environmentally. It was economical/political change.
"beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread.Solar power etc."
What are you talking about in terms of revenue? Yes.
did not answer the question...
What personal changes have you made in your life to help the environment?
Reduction of heating while away from home. We attempt to limit use of dryer when doing laundry. Recycle as much as we can (though that process is not perfect, not our attempt, but the system at large). Re-use as much as we can. We have one car, with no plans to get a second one. The car we do have is maintained appropriately to not only increase its life, but to make it as efficient as possible.
ok, so you're generally a blue box baby
Green Party:
I never offered any rebuttal regarding how they’ve improved their platform, because quite frankly, my goal is as you’ve said. The effect of 600,000 + votes for the green party is that the main parties, which will most likely always rule, have taken notice and have made the environment a key running platform. Both the liberals and the conservatives. They realize that support for alternative parties will only increase if they do nothing. So, from that standpoint, and from the ultimate goal of having government address the environment, I don’t feel my logic is flawed. Regardless of whether or not I know every facet of the green party platform, I am voting for them, because symbolically, I am making a statement to the main parties.
With that mind set, why not vote for the flying Yogis!!
I have no idea what Gardasil is. I am very wary of chemical fix to our cancer problems. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure…
Gardasil is the new vaccine that prevents 70% of cervical cancer cases caused by certain strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). HPV is believed to cause 98% of all cervical cancers. HPV remains in the body and negatively affects cell growth. HPV most often is sexually transmitted. Over the last year, Health Canada has recommended that all females between 8 to 26 yrs get the vaccine in order to prevent cervical cancer as over 75% of Canadians will have an HPV infection in their life time. Guidelines for males have not been released to date. I believe the vaccine will become mandatory for school age children shortly. Preventative and chemical!
A couple things I would like to comment on: Hawkeye implied that the Green Party (or the number of votes for them) has made the big parties realise that the environment is a priority, and they have to do something about it. I would argue that. Harper WON the election with clear intent to do nothing about the environment, yet that is the same time the Green Party got so many more votes than ever before. I think the reason the government is waking up is because it has become impossible to refute the world-wide climate change we've caused, and the public is finally getting fired up about it. I don't attribute that to the Green Party.
I watched the Elizabeth May interview linked by Chiquita. It was a good example of why Peter Mansbridge is a good interviewer. He didn't let her get away with glossing over things that may counter her points. Honestly, I still think Harris was a better leader for a fledgling Green Party... Yes it's a "grass-roots" party, but you need someone at the helm who can play the political games. May strikes me as good intentioned, but out of her league.
As for how companies will handle fines/incentives to be less wasteful... I think if it costs them money in any way, they'll just move! I believe Hawkeye made the point that it's the bottom line that motivates them. I agree! If they can build it cheaper in another city/province/country due to waste fines where they are, they'll have more incentive to relocate than to clean up.
Interesting debate guys! Let's keep it civil though. Chiquita, your last post reads a little hostile (eg. "Blue Box Baby")
Chiquita, your last post reads a little hostile (eg. "Blue Box Baby")
Listen you f*** a** sucky moderator don't chastize me for your stupid misinterpretation of my post when you don't get off your lazy fat butt to deal with other sucky sexists and nasty posts.
And this post is a little hostile, just so you know the difference.
I don’t consider that a rant, because first I was not mad or fuming when I wrote that post, and second, I merely pointed out areas our government could pursue.
Then don't say electricity if you mean only heating. It is not feasible for any government to spend millions of dollars on promoting personal electric systems that are costly, require extensive operating knowledge in terms of hazardous material and electrical safety. Let alone the cost of inspectors to ensure the safety of the community (ie fire, UV radiation, illegal disposal of battery cells).
Some homes like my parent’s have electric furnaces, that was where I was referring. I didn't attack for bringing up the appliances and in fact I agree with the appliance rebates, but feel it should be taken a step further, that was my point. As for government spending, the government spends millions upon millions in other areas, supporting varies studies in universities, support of research in medicine etc, why not support environmental technology? Already we have people illegally disposing of garbage, they should be fined! As for electrical issues, people can go to the ESA and get their home checked. This is already done on homes so adding a new thing to look at would not cost a huge amount more. As for extensive knowledge to run it... hmm do you have extensive knowledge of your car? How about the furnace in Trarman's home? Breaker system? I do agree that the battery aspect could be a little better, they are working on it. -- oh, so to your knowledge they have done nothing environmentally. It was economical/political change.
In the time period I was referring (1880’s to 1930’s) it was an economical/political/power based reason for the change. Since then Japan has come to face some very serious issues. First, as a small country (only 8% arable land [is that fact? I think so ]) they do not have room for dumps (they do of course dump in the ocean) so they have made some cradle to grave rules for such things as washing machines and dryers where they can be taken apart with one screw driver and the company who builds them owns them when their usefulness is over. Fuel economy is very important and Japanese cars lead the way in that regard. The Japanese are concerned, and rightly so, over their dioxin levels.
"beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread.Solar power etc."
What are you talking about in terms of revenue? Yes. did not answer the question...
Sorry, I read “were you talking about in terms of revenue.” To answer your question for Canada to be a leader in environmental technology, it must have research and development. Just like the Canadian government spends millions on tourism ads to achieve tourism dollars so should it do so to it should spend on environment. If Canadian companies lead the way, they can then sell their product locally and to other countries and make money.
ok, so you're generally a blue box baby
What have you done? and who do you support?
Green Party:
I never offered any rebuttal regarding how they’ve improved their platform, because quite frankly, my goal is as you’ve said. The effect of 600,000 + votes for the green party is that the main parties, which will most likely always rule, have taken notice and have made the environment a key running platform. Both the liberals and the conservatives. They realize that support for alternative parties will only increase if they do nothing. So, from that standpoint, and from the ultimate goal of having government address the environment, I don’t feel my logic is flawed. Regardless of whether or not I know every facet of the green party platform, I am voting for them, because symbolically, I am making a statement to the main parties.
With that mind set, why not vote for the flying Yogis!!
This is called Strategic voting and is done all the time. Usually, the NDP are the victims of this kind of voting.
I have no idea what Gardasil is. I am very wary of chemical fix to our cancer problems. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure…
Gardasil is the new vaccine that prevents 70% of cervical cancer cases caused by certain strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). HPV is believed to cause 98% of all cervical cancers. HPV remains in the body and negatively affects cell growth. HPV most often is sexually transmitted. Over the last year, Health Canada has recommended that all females between 8 to 26 yrs get the vaccine in order to prevent cervical cancer as over 75% of Canadians will have an HPV infection in their life time. Guidelines for males have not been released to date. I believe the vaccine will become mandatory for school age children shortly. Preventative and chemical!
I am all for reduction of cervical cancer especially since I am married and have a young daughter. Can this drug cure lung cancer? Lymphoma? But, what are the side effects? This is another topic, but if this goes to mandatory then is this not another huge experiment on the population of Canada? No Vaccine is mandatory and to be made so would go against the charter of rights and freedoms.
One could argue that Harper did not win the Election, as he only achieved a minority government. As well, people voted for Harper as retaliation against the Liberals, the environment for the majority was not paramount in the voting choice. (Read Strategic voting)
I did not put all the merit on the Green party, I did point out we are more educated about the environment and, I believe, as a result green party got more votes. So, the main parties see that people will now vote for the environment (rightly or wrongly for the green party) and so now must change. This is what I have wanted all along.
As for how companies will handle fines/incentives to be less wasteful... I think if it costs them money in any way, they'll just move! I believe Hawkeye made the point that it's the bottom line that motivates them. I agree! If they can build it cheaper in another city/province/country due to waste fines where they are, they'll have more incentive to relocate than to clean up.
But, capitalism loves a void, where one company moves out another will move in. Setting the ground rules would benefit us all. Though to be fair I agree, but those companies that would move, I would bet, would move anyway it would only be a matter of time.
I just watched the May interview. She seems very literate and has a long history of environmental activism. Certainly, she's not your average politician in her presenting herself. Tell me Chiquita, you refer to her as the 'Idiotess'. Why? She's quite articulate that's for sure.
To be honest, I guess I was looking for a knock out punch from Mansbridge, when I thought he was light on her.
I don’t consider that a rant, because first I was not mad or fuming when I wrote that post, and second, I merely pointed out areas our government could pursue.
Rant as defined by Wikipedia, as emotional speech or writing usually consisting of complaints or attacks. Rants are partially incoherent, or are buttressed by shallow arguments or logical fallacies.
Some homes like my parent’s have electric furnaces, that was where I was referring. I didn't attack for bringing up the appliances and in fact I agree with the appliance rebates, but feel it should be taken a step further, that was my point. As for government spending, the government spends millions upon millions in other areas, supporting varies studies in universities, support of research in medicine etc, why not support environmental technology? Already we have people illegally disposing of garbage, they should be fined! As for electrical issues, people can go to the ESA and get their home checked. This is already done on homes so adding a new thing to look at would not cost a huge amount more. As for extensive knowledge to run it... hmm do you have extensive knowledge of your car? How about the furnace in Trarman's home? Breaker system? I do agree that the battery aspect could be a little better, they are working on it.
Three words come to mind: common sense, feasibility, and fiscal responsibility. Canada’s population is roughly 32808486. By your method, every home would have solar heating panels on its roof. Assuming that four people live together (about 8202121.5 homes) and your estimated cost of $30000 for a solar system. It would cost $246063645000 to install the systems. One wind turbine costs roughly $130000 and services 250 homes (figures taken From Toronto Hydro Corporation/ Windshare website). That is a cost of $520 per home or total cost $4265103180. The difference between the two methods is $ 241798541820 !! Energy farms for wind (or solar power) would provide required energy levels. The Farms would reduce dependence on nuclear energy and coal without substantial changes or costs to our current energy system. Energy farms are more efficient as the set up and do not require dependence on the existing roof alignment or specific geographical location (ie Northwest Territories in winter). Energy farms could provide an alternative for farmers struggling to make a living as well as maintain jobs for our existing power workers. Money saved by not installing solar panels on every home could be used to pay down national debt, improve preventable medicine, improve health care system or go to further development.
Furthermore, creating a take credit for solar power systems might discriminate against lower income Canadians who might not be able to afford the $30,000. In addition, a power system that has less users is going to have to raise its cost per user to maintain its existing system.
Something being green does not necessarily make it a good idea.
”beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread. Solar power etc."
What are you talking about in terms of revenue?
Yes.
did not answer the question...
Sorry, I read “were you talking about in terms of revenue.” To answer your question for Canada to be a leader in environmental technology, it must have research and development. Just like the Canadian government spends millions on tourism ads to achieve tourism dollars so should it do so to it should spend on environment. If Canadian companies lead the way, they can then sell their product locally and to other countries and make money.
did not answer the question, again...
I am all for reduction of cervical cancer especially since I am married and have a young daughter. Can this drug cure lung cancer? Lymphoma? But, what are the side effects? This is another topic, but if this goes to mandatory then is this not another huge experiment on the population of Canada? No Vaccine is mandatory and to be made so would go against the charter of rights and freedoms.
Rant as defined by Wikipedia, as emotional speech or writing usually consisting of complaints or attacks. Rants are partially incoherent, or are buttressed by shallow arguments or logical fallacies.
I’ll refer to the oxford dictionary definition: rant: verb, speak or shout [or write] at length in a wild, impassioned way. Besides, who was I attacking? How are my arguments shallow? What is illogical about that post?
Three words come to mind: common sense, feasibility, and fiscal responsibility… … improve health care system or go to further development.
By oxford definition this could be a rant. Taken to an illogical extreme I agree with your figures that the cost would be astronomical. I never said every home, I never said the full cost should be borne by the government, and I never said only solar power. I was giving examples. I agree, wind farms would be great too and I would have no problem with the setup you envisioned. And I am sure there are other technologies which would be beneficial to our environmental woes.
Furthermore, creating a take credit for solar power systems might discriminate against lower income Canadians who might not be able to afford the $30,000. In addition, a power system that has less users is going to have to raise its cost per user to maintain its existing system.
The more investment is made into a particular technology the more the prices come down over time. At first any brand new technology is expensive precisely because it is new, untested fully, and expensive to make. Other examples, (though not limited to these examples) are electronics, improved medical techniques or improved appliances and computers. All of those prices have either come down or, if not, the product’s efficiency increased.
did not answer the question, again...
Perhaps it would help if you’d elaborate on exactly what you’re looking for instead of just saying I did not answer the question.
You’re ignoring the point.
Am I? I don’t think so. There are plenty of people who are concerned with the amount of drugs we take. And I am one of them. To paraphrase your words, just because it may beneficial in one area, doesn’t mean it isn’t a detriment in others.
I’ll refer to the oxford dictionary definition.. I was thinking more along the lines of shallow agruments..well anyway each to his/her own definition
In previous posts, Hawkeye has presented ideas such as the introduction of geothermal and solar technologies to aid Canada in helping the state of the environment. He has stated that Canadian representative should be sent to other nations to investigate practical not theoretical environmental solutions. His previously mentioned methods are theoretically possible in Canada, but in terms of widespread application and the current state of these technologies are not financial feasible or practical without sacrificing money for other programs or incurring substantial personal debt. If Al Gore is correct and we have a 40 year deadline to implement changes to reverse global warming, these changes have to be immediate, widespread, effective, and relatively low cost in order to reach and impact 32 million Canadians.
-----
The more investment is made into a particular technology the more the prices come down over time. At first any brand new technology is expensive precisely because it is new, untested fully, and expensive to make. Other examples, (though not limited to these examples) are electronics, improved medical techniques or improved appliances and computers. All of those prices have either come down or, if not, the product’s efficiency increased.
I'm sorry for the confusion. What I was trying to convey: The price of standard forms of electricity by coal or nuclear will go up, due to less people paying for the maintainence of these services. I think it is likely there will be a timeframe where both new and old forms of electricity production will be costly.
----
did not answer the question, again... I was wanting examples from you where you thought "green" technologies were profitable to back up your statment that you thought a lot of money could be made in that area; and how much money are we talking about and what scale?
---
You’re ignoring the point. A 15% decrease in Canadian cancer rates would be great, but really is not a significant amount..considering the introduction of one new vaccine to the Canadian market can do that. What changes the Green Party is going to introduce to make their 15% target is of significance...From my TU background, I am pretty confident that I could statistically alter the Canadian Cancer rate by 0.15.
In previous posts, Hawkeye has presented ideas such as the introduction of geothermal and solar technologies to aid Canada in helping the state of the environment. He has stated that Canadian representative should be sent to other nations to investigate practical not theoretical environmental solutions. His previously mentioned methods are theoretically possible in Canada, but in terms of widespread application and the current state of these technologies are not financial feasible or practical without sacrificing money for other programs or incurring substantial personal debt. If Al Gore is correct and we have a 40 year deadline to implement changes to reverse global warming, these changes have to be immediate, widespread, effective, and relatively low cost in order to reach and impact 32 million Canadians.
Good luck trying to find any single thing that is “immediate, widespread, effective and relatively low cost.”
I listed a couple examples, and then you tore them apart because I didn’t exhaustively list all examples. You refuted my arguments as much by attacking what I didn’t say as what I did. If we as a world are going to tackle this problem, many solutions will be needed.
FYI, Check out http://www.nextenergysolutions.com/ and see for yourself how feasible georthermal is. This is happening right here in Waterloo. -----
I'm sorry for the confusion. What I was trying to convey: The price of standard forms of electricity by coal or nuclear will go up, due to less people paying for the maintainence of these services. I think it is likely there will be a timeframe where both new and old forms of electricity production will be costly.
I agree that the price of electricity will go up. But, what is the alternative? More nuclear, upkeep of dilapidated powerplants? More coal? Unfortunatley, none of these technologies by themselves would cure our environmental ills.
----
did not answer the question, again... I was wanting examples from you where you thought "green" technologies were profitable to back up your statment that you thought a lot of money could be made in that area; and how much money are we talking about and what scale?
I think we now have the crux of our debate. You are speaking specifically, where I was speaking generally. I have given examples of where government inflow of cash as generated income for the company involved. (Tourism, etc see previous post). My statement was that this principle of putting money into research and development will reap rewards in the future. If we produce something, whatever that something is, better than anyone else, we can sell cheaper and therefore generate income. I know this happens. Japanese steel companies are constantly vilified in the States for flooding their steel products into the US market place. Is the steel any better? No, but it is made far more efficiently. That was my general point. Take that principle and apply it to ‘environmental’ or ‘green’ technologies. They may not be feasible now, but after more research they very likely will be. As for specific revenue, which could be generated, I haven’t a clue, and neither does anyone else.
---
You’re ignoring the point. A 15% decrease in Canadian cancer rates would be great, but really is not a significant amount..considering the introduction of one new vaccine to the Canadian market can do that. What changes the Green Party is going to introduce to make their 15% target is of significance...From my TU background, I am pretty confident that I could statistically alter the Canadian Cancer rate by 0.15.
One could do pretty much anything if you draw on a sampling small enough, or narrow enough. As far as the green party is concerned I have gone over their 2006 platform, and while they are different in terms of grass roots hoopla, they are the same as any other political party with grand statements of vision for the country, yet thin on actual substance. But, again, that is not why I voted for them.
I have yet to get an answer to what you do for the environment, and who you support.
Elizabeth May is an accidental Canadian, born (1954) in Hartford, Connecticut, to a rich American family. The family lost their money and were forced to move to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia (in 1972 and they opened a giftshop/restaurant). She became a canadian out of necessity in 1978.
Elizabeth May remains heavily involved in American Politics, notably having backed by campaigning/fundrasing for George Mcgovern, Eugene McCarthy, and Bill Clinton. In addition Elizabeth May, was an environmental advisor in Brian Mulroney's conservative government. Her politcal views and ties are almost exculsively conservative in nature.
After having viewed Elizabeth May repeatedly in the news and on Rick Mercer Report [under October 17, 2006, http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/backissues.php ] Elizabeth May gives the impression of being a middle age uneducated housewife with the language of her sixteen year old daughter. For example, she has used the following expressions: "rock this country's politics in a way no other party ever has" or overusing "a force". She does not give the impression of having a charisma or fortitude to lead a nation but rather someone who would have trouble organizing a cookie bake sale.
During the London by election, Elizabeth Mat recent stance on abortion at the Sister of St. Joseph in London was disgusting ignorant and I quote "I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose". I think this is a sad comment from someone who was an assistant Professor in Women's Health and Environment at Dalhousie University in 1998. And quite frankly, all the grovelling she is doing to regain her popularity with feminists is tiresome and far too late. Frankly, it makes her look pathetic. She wrote an open letter to Judith Rebick (prodominent canadian feminist who had offered the Green Party financial support)that was quite filled with debating nuances on the issue and judgementalism on the issue; i don't understand why she could have not simply said:"I have a personal problem with abortion, as do many other people, but from first to last I will defend all women's right to full access to safe abortions." She is a leader of a party that supports abortion..she represents others, she should have towed the line. You just can't have a nuanced discussion about people's rights, if she wanted to have a nuanced discussion about slavery, that's her right, but I'd be damn worried about it.
I have yet to get an answer to what you do for the environment, and who you support
I don't do anything for the environment nor do I support any federal party. I was merely challenging your beliefs/statements/actions and yanking your chain a bit, but it appears that I have taken it too far...so I apologize to you and Trarman for any offense I have caused.
I figured you were playing devil's advocate, but enjoyed the sparing none-the-less. No harm done or felt. Though, I must admit, being told I rant was a good hook I think that when a person reads an email, they tend to put tone and an emotion into emails where none was intended. So, frankly, I tried to not read any tone, just the words and spar at what was written.
Globe and Mail reported today that the Conservatives are losing the damage control game with regards to the environment and Canadian mission in Afganistan. Precious Harper sound bits from December where he disparagingly refer to global warming as 'so-called climate change' and his parties sudden change from the earth is flat society to green agents of change has not gone unnoticed by the Canadian population. Globe and Mail report that there was vigourous dissension in the last caucus meeting. The Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party of Canada appear to be leading the attack and threaten to disolve the conservative government. Reportely, support for the war on Afganistan is lowest in Quebec. In announcement today, Stephen Dion is calling for public meetings to be held with regards to Canada's role. The issues appears to revolve around the total lack of balance between the military component of the mission versus the development aid component of the mission versus the diplomacy component of the mission.
I think the conservatives will do as much as possible to stay an election, because if one is held soon, they will not be in control afterwards. So, what does that leave? To garner support for the environment he'll have to lean on the NDP, and NDP will want some results as Jack Layton has emphasized. What will be interesting to see is if the two leaders can apply their kindergarden sandbox lessons to parliament, ie learn to play together.
RE: Afghanistan
Support for any war or fighting is ALWAYS lowest in Quebec.
I do think there should be more development. But, in order to be able to accomplish that the area must be secured. The concervatives find themselves caught betwen iraq and a hard place () Because they have inherited this fiasco from the former liberal government and are left with cleaning it up.
As far as the next election is concerned I really don't think any party wants to be labeled with having forced a 3rd election in 3 years!
I've now seen a conservative attack ad targeting Dion. In it Ignatief and Dion are duking it out over the environment. Dion, almost in a whiney voice, retorts with 'That's not Fair.' To be fair, he was just a minister and Chretien and Martin did not have the environment as their focus. I suspect, with Dion now as the leader the conservatives must attack his credibility on the environment, because they have absolutely none. Smoke and mirrors... or a good offense is a good defence.
I will be interested in seeing how Dion and the Liberals counter these ads, if at all. I wonder if the conservatives are going to campaign mode now because their hopes for delaying an election are almost used up.
I find the ad's attack rather weak. I don't feel either Ignatif (sp?) or Dion were particularly strong during the debate but in the small clip of the ad, their conversation seems so trivial and out of context that I feel the conservatives are really stretching to attack Dion.
Harper by removing press from parliment and saying little has done a lot for keeping his "nose clean". He has cut funding to child care, health care, women's issues, old age pension plan with not much protest from the media. Unfortunately, Harper who was voted in by Canadians, seems to think Canadians are a mere inconvience to his plans for Canada and would rather sneak changes through then have open debate...
Harper has sent John Baird to observe the Paris Summit (starts Feb 7) on the Environment and he is promising the Canada will attend an emerency UN summit on the issue. WOW, he is sending someone to watch...hmmm sounds a mini bush to me...how about something with long term change?
French President Jacques Chirac has stated that he wants Baird to confirm Canada's support for a new United Nations environment organization. Baird's spokesman, Mike Van Soelen, Canada would not support the creation of the organization.
Harper wrote an open letter (2002) stating that the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" aimed at sucking money from wealth-producing nations. Dion asked the Prime Minister in Question Period to admit that the recent Conservative interest in global warming "is just an attempt to mislead the Canadian people." He demanded to know why Harper had changed his mind about global warming since 2002. Harper dodged the question twice,. Harper finally responded with one of his most direct acknowledgments that man-made climate change is a problem. "This government has made it clear in the election campaign and since that we accept the science and that is why we are acting." -um environment was not even on the conservative radar during the election. After the caucus meeting yesterday, reports tried to ask whether the mps believes in the science of global warming. No one answered, except Blaine Calkins, a Conservative MP from Alberta who is a member of the Commons environment committee, grinned, and replied, "I'm going to defer on that one."...hello shouldn't you have an opinion if you are on that committee?? Harper's rein of silence continues.
***
In Vancouver, the conservative-leaning Fraser Institute has finished a 53-page report that contends global warming due to human activity is a "hypothesis" and says "there is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway" in the world's climate. A leaked version of this report can be found at:
The report is touted as "a useful addition to the ongoing discussion on climate change" but it is spin..
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had a 1,600 page report of compelling evidence on global warming..a good portion of it was written by Dr. Andrew Weaver, a researcher at the University of Victoria, Canada.
Harper is like a mini bush and the sooner he gets that Canada is NOT receptive to American Republican ideals the better.
As far as climate change, the frequency and severity of storms and extreme weather should be a tip off. Only once the US was actually hit with a devestating storm did the government begin to see. However, the US predominately still is against saying climate change is happening because it would go against american (elite) interests.
It is estimated that Toronto alone has 50,000 illegal workers/immigrants..it seems like Canada needs to step up on enforcement and removals of immigrants. It turns out that we nationally average 40 illegal removals a year-wow!! Sure sounds like a broken system to me.
I'm sure there has to be somebody out there who would rather work a menial job than collect welfare. And if there aren't, it should say something about the state of our social assistance programs. of course something should probably be said about them anyway... the people who really need the help often suffocate on red tape, and often can't afford to get a job because they have kids to care for, but no daycare subsidy. Therefore, they actually lose money by working and paying for daycare, rather than staying home and collecting the welfare cheque. I have a friend who works for children's aid, and she says it's a fairly common story.
Of course, for those who don't want to work, but want more of life's comforts than they can afford on welfare, there's always prison...
Shiela copps actually had ONE good idea... give companies and businesses tax breaks if they set up daycare within their company... For us two kids at the babysitters would be an average of $1560 a month!! No single parent could afford that kind of cash!
Companies like the one where I work, would just try to find a way to put them to work for lower wages. Of course that would mean the kids could be earning their keep at home!
Ideally, yes... but the problem lately is that government tends to be widening the loopholes for companies thanks to corporate lobbyists and only shutting down the rights of the average citizen. Often I'll hear about another case where our rights are in danger from Michael Geist's blog http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ (but he's not all doom and gloom, so it's not like visiting Michael Moore's site)
Maybe it is time we put restrictions on corporate lobbists, criminalize elected officials for accepting corporate gifts or perks. Perhaps even reducing lobbists access to draft bills prior to the bills release to the public. Harper has banned MPs from working for lobbists for 5 years after they leave parliment in order to curb the passing of sensitive information..obviously knows where the loyalty is...$$
Brian Mulruney certainly didn't disappoint.  Such a circus bringing all his family to parliament last week.  It comes down to this, he took $225,000 from Schrieber and only 7 years later did he claim it as income... and the only reason he did it then was because the Schrieber money was coming to light.  The fact that he took money while still in office is boogling.
"You  can't even get a $1,000 bill anymore. They were withdrawn by the Bank of Canada in 2000 at the request of the RCMP and the Solicitor General because they were often used in money-laundering schemes. " Randy Burton , The StarPhoenix Published: Saturday, December 15, 2007
How was Mulroney paid? In stacks of 10 $1000 bills.
There was a funny cartoon in the record the other day.  It shows Mulroney and he's saying something about making a mistake beleiving Schrieber when the latter said All international businessmen deal only in cash in $1000 bills, in paper bags, secretly... in foreign countries...
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
E-mail
Private message
The NDP was the original "green party" in Canada. I think the NDP track record attests to that. The Green Party of Canada was established federally 1996 (provincially 1983 in some provinces), and has had subsequent internal issues that despite its gaining popularity has not been able to maintain cohesiveness within the party, most notably the separation of the Green Party of Manitoba in 2005. The Green Party of Saskatchewan ignored the federal policies of its party and ran its own local policies which contradicted some of its party's federal policies. In addition, the Green Party has not been able to really maintain infrastructure between elections. The Green Party funding is non existent and is primarily funded by Wayne Crookes, a BC businessman through the Green Party of British Columbia. One could question the intentions of a party that has one substantial donor. In the last federal election, Green Party was only able to secure 4.5 % of the total vote and without representation in parliment...proof that Canadian are concern with the environment. 
I've only just begun.
