What Climate Change?
For those who have been peripherally paying attention to the Conservative government's withdrawal from Canada's involvement in the Kyoto Protocol and development of a "made in Canada" solution as part of the Asia-Pacific Partnership and are thinking, well, maybe they have a better solution that is more suited to Canada's specifics, it seems this is merely hopeful.
From April 26th:
This is akin to saying:
"Well, we think the Kyoto Agreement doesn't really suit Canada's direction at this point. We're all for doing our part to help out the planet we're in the process of destroying, except maybe we could try some other approach that doesn't involve any incentive to change or targeted results. But we're still really interested in trying something. Maybe we can still get an A for effort even if nothing actually happens."
The David Suzuki Foundation adds a little more to the issue:
Those in the Conservative Party have been quick to point out that under the previous Liberal government, emissions have increased 24.4% above 1990 levels. Now doesn't seem exactly the best time to pull the "Well they did it, why shouldn't we be allowed to" argument when a quarter of the species on the planet (and subsequently billions of humans) face extinction in the next 40-odd years due to climate change, according to Nature magazine and the UN.
From April 26th:
It is not legally binding and does not set caps on carbon emissions.
"The key principles of the Asia (Pacific) Partnership are very much in line with where our government wants to go," [Environment Minister Rona] Ambrose said at a briefing yesterday.
This is akin to saying:
"Well, we think the Kyoto Agreement doesn't really suit Canada's direction at this point. We're all for doing our part to help out the planet we're in the process of destroying, except maybe we could try some other approach that doesn't involve any incentive to change or targeted results. But we're still really interested in trying something. Maybe we can still get an A for effort even if nothing actually happens."
The David Suzuki Foundation adds a little more to the issue:
“The Asia-Pacific Partnership is little more than smoke and mirrors,” said Dale Marshall, the Foundation’s Ottawa-based climate change policy analyst. “The pact contains no targets, no timelines, no penalties and favours a voluntary approach to addressing greenhouse gas emissions.”
On Tuesday, federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said Canada is considering joining the breakaway group of six countries – the United States, India, China, Australia, South Korea and Japan – which joined forces last July. Researchers for the Australian government have concluded that full implementation of the Asia-Pacific Partnership alone would still result in a doubling of global emissions by 2050.
Those in the Conservative Party have been quick to point out that under the previous Liberal government, emissions have increased 24.4% above 1990 levels. Now doesn't seem exactly the best time to pull the "Well they did it, why shouldn't we be allowed to" argument when a quarter of the species on the planet (and subsequently billions of humans) face extinction in the next 40-odd years due to climate change, according to Nature magazine and the UN.
posted by Mike at 2:20 PM
2 Comments:
The Asia Pacific Group is more collaborative and doesn't involve the establishment of arbitrary goals. No selling of emission credits!! 4 members of the Asia Pacific Group are also signatories to Kyoto so they are exclusive.
Besides, there will also be a Clean Air Act in the fall. That is not simply ignoring the problem as the Libs did.
I would agree with you that the Liberals didn't do a great job. I think the incentives for reducing energy use in homes was a good idea, but the record doesn't look very good for them in general.
Any goal is arbitrary at this point until someone says that x reduction is what is necessary to bring y results.
Given the Bush government's prior actions on the environment, jumping on whatever ship they're at the helm of seems like a mistake. I suppose we can see what happens, but the Kyoto accord has been given wide support from environmental groups, and that seems much more valid than the damning commentary that has come regarding the Asia-Pacific partnership.
I also hope that Harper's Clean Air Act involves reductions in CO2, what we really need right now, instead of just particulate reduction, which has been the rumoured stance of the CPC.
Post a Comment
<< Home