[fatbasturd]

Liberals' pro-Kyoto bill passes second reading
Updated Thu. Oct. 5 2006 7:04 AM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- A bill that would oblige the government to respect its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol passed second reading Wednesday, as the three opposition parties outvoted the government.

The 152-115 vote in the Commons is an embarrassment for the Conservative government, which has declared the emissions-cutting targets of the climate treaty to be unachievable.

The bill's stated purpose is "to ensure that Canada takes effective and timely action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and help address the problem of climate change."

Conservative MPs found themselves in the awkward position of voting against a bill which calls on them to uphold a treaty which they claim to support.

But the Conservatives weren't showing any discomfort, cheering and gathering around Environment Minister Rona Ambrose as she voted.

The private member's bill, introduced by Liberal Pablo Rodriguez, now goes to the Commons environment committee for study.

After that it goes to third reading, possibly with amendments, and then to the Senate.

The vote is nevertheless significant, said Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank.

"It shows once again that the government is pursuing a policy that is not only contrary to the opinions of the majority of (Canadians') opinions but contrary to the opinions of the majority of MPs," he said.

[2Cdo]

Kyoto is a bill designed to punish the west while allowing developing countries carte blanche. (India and China will have no restrictions) It is merely a left-wing wealth distribution plan that actually does nothing in reference to global warming. That being said I do think we should investigate alternate means of energy and try to reduce greenhouse gasses, but not holding ALL countries to the same standard is destined for failure.

[ridenrain]

2Cdo =

[SireJoe]

""It shows once again that the government is pursuing a policy that is not only contrary to the opinions of the majority of (Canadians') opinions but contrary to the opinions of the majority of MPs," he said."


How is it contrary to the majority of the MP's if it got passed? Wasnt it THEM who passed it?

[Arctic_Menace]

$1:

How is it contrary to the majority of the MP's if it got passed? Wasnt it THEM who passed it?

He meant the bill and how the Cons voted against.

[bootlegga]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Kyoto is a bill designed to punish the west while allowing developing countries carte blanche. (India and China will have no restrictions) It is merely a left-wing wealth distribution plan that actually does nothing in reference to global warming. That being said I do think we should investigate alternate means of energy and try to reduce greenhouse gasses, but not holding ALL countries to the same standard is destined for failure.

I agree with this sentiment, but Kyoto is the only plan we have, flawed as it is. I also agree that as long as 1 billion Chinese all want a car, in the long run it won't make much worldwide difference how much 30 million Canucks reduce.

However, I do think we should to stick to Kyoto until we can get a true GLOBAL agreement. Otherwise the world will burn to a cinder while we wait for Bush/Harper/whoever to come up something that does work. This comes down to the old saw, do what we can now with what we have or wait for something better to come along, however long that may be. Klein has been promising 'clean' coal for a decade and we still have nothing to show for it. Who knows if we'll ever get there?

It really annoys me that India and China are not part of it, but I don't see how reducing pollution can be a bad thing. If anything, it could create new recycling techonologies and perhaps reduce the amount of smog days our major cities have. Who knows, by the West trying to reduce carbon emissions, we might finally be able to replace the IC engine with a cheaper, cleaner technology.

[2Cdo]

Sorry to disagree bootlegga, but a bad deal is not better than no deal, it is worse. Kyoto is unattainable by Canada without destroying the economy and industry. Like I said earlier, the only good environmental plan is one that treats all countries the same, no special deals, no transferring energy credits. One plan, one standard.

I have no problem with reducing pollution, emissions etc, and I am a firm believer in investigating energy resources that are "clean" ie. solar and wind power. But even these "clean" sources come with other issues which people will eventually complain about.

On Wolfe Island near Kingston they want to erect a "Wind Farm" which will generate a whole hockey sock worth of clean energy and the complaints have already started about noise and the eyesore of looking at all the towers! Sometimes you can't win for losing.

[BartSimpson]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Sorry to disagree bootlegga, but a bad deal is not better than no deal, it is worse. Kyoto is unattainable by Canada without destroying the economy and industry. Like I said earlier, the only good environmental plan is one that treats all countries the same, no special deals, no transferring energy credits. One plan, one standard.

I have no problem with reducing pollution, emissions etc, and I am a firm believer in investigating energy resources that are "clean" ie. solar and wind power. But even these "clean" sources come with other issues which people will eventually complain about.

On Wolfe Island near Kingston they want to erect a "Wind Farm" which will generate a whole hockey sock worth of clean energy and the complaints have already started about noise and the eyesore of looking at all the towers! Sometimes you can't win for losing.

The purpose of Kyoto is NOT pollution reduction since it places no constraints on the emerging industrial nations. The purpose of Kyoto is to hamstring the economies of the West with the intention of destroying our hard-won economic advantages.

Canada should reduce pollution for Canada's sake, but to do so because your left-wing politicians think that you should be writing huge checks to third world nations every year is absurd. (this is part of the Kyoto Treaty)

If you people wish to give away Canada's economy I suppose that's your call.

Just don't cry when so many of your industries are forced to move to the USA in order to continue doing business.

[ridenrain]

One of the main targets enviromentalists hammer is the western love of cars, so reducing the cars would be a logical step, right?

Not if Malcolm Bricklin and Maurice Strong have anything to do with it. They started Visionary Vehicles LLC to import Chinese made Chery Automobiles into the US. Bricklin is also the guy that brought the Yugo to North America, and they definately were not clean little ecologically friendly things.

A damn strange thing for the father of Kyoto to be doing.

links

$1:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is "no." The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. " -- Maurice Strong, secretary general, 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

[SireJoe]

ridenrain ridenrain:

One of the main targets enviromentalists hammer is the western love of cars, so reducing the cars would be a logical step, right?

Not if Malcolm Bricklin and Maurice Strong have anything to do with it. They started Visionary Vehicles LLC to import Chinese made Chery Automobiles into the US. Bricklin is also the guy that brought the Yugo to North America, and they definately were not clean little ecologically friendly things.

A damn strange thing for the father of Kyoto to be doing.

links

$1:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is "no." The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. " -- Maurice Strong, secretary general, 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

Just to disagree with your first point there....I dont think the reduction of vehicles is an answer to pollution. Its the FUEL that those vehicles use that are the problem, not the vehciles. If we can come to a better design in electricity, or hydrogen or whatever the hell else they got out there, then there is no need to remove vehciles from the road. Just a cleaner if not competely clean burning fuel.

Although I am sure, its probably not really cars that are the MAIN problem. Im sure factories play a HUGE part in our enviroment. Which I find curious because I have heard of systems that can take the pollution from smoke stacks and turn it into a useable fuel, leaving a much cleaner smoke behind.

But like anything else, this all takes money. Money people, atm, do not want to part with.

[ridenrain]

Ok. I agree with that but maybe you're ecology palls are more reasonable than mine.
Automobiles have become more and more efficient with a steady increase in power, and cleaner emissions. I don't see gasoline/diesel going away, any time soon.
Electricity is fine but you then need to take into account the batteries, their manufacture, disposal and the need to generate much more electricity. Most modern hybreds use special batteries and they are pretty rude, toxic tings, as an exploding laptop owner can admit to.
I don't believe hydrogen is the answer because we need to crack the hydrogen. That is another argument.

Arguably, the automotive industry made north America the industrial giant that it is today. Cars need so many sub prossesses & materials and it's those, and their spin-offs that make so many other things possible.
With these manufacturing processes comes polution, and it's this, more than our expensive union labor, that is driving industry to China, and other developing countries. China has sopmething like 16 of the top 25 most polluted cities, because they are willing to trade the economic benefits for clean air & water.
This is what makes Kyoto and it's carbon tax ponzy scheme so wrong, especially in light of Mr. Strongs frightening quote.

[SireJoe]

I dont think we can force any other nation on earth to follow an accord of any kind. All we can do is help to make things better while hoping that others will follow suit. To do nothing is not helping anyone. Every little bit helps.

And those examples I gave, Im sure there are other technologies out there that have promise. Im certain that gas and oil will EVENTUALLY be things of the past. When that may be is a whole other story.

[ridenrain]

Then maybe you can explain the whole reasoning behind the carbon credit plan.
Because we cannot meet our Kyoto goals, (I'd say because the Liberals were 'tards) then we must buy "credits" from China, or other select, developing countries. Give money to someone else instead of using that money here in Canada to fix the problem.
It's a total scam and what frightens me is the number of usefull idiots that demand we follow it.

We definately don't need a UN mandated boondoggle. We need a "made in Canada" solution that uses our money & resources to fix our problem.

We can address polution in other countries by not buying their produsts.

[2Cdo]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Sorry to disagree bootlegga, but a bad deal is not better than no deal, it is worse. Kyoto is unattainable by Canada without destroying the economy and industry. Like I said earlier, the only good environmental plan is one that treats all countries the same, no special deals, no transferring energy credits. One plan, one standard.

I have no problem with reducing pollution, emissions etc, and I am a firm believer in investigating energy resources that are "clean" ie. solar and wind power. But even these "clean" sources come with other issues which people will eventually complain about.

On Wolfe Island near Kingston they want to erect a "Wind Farm" which will generate a whole hockey sock worth of clean energy and the complaints have already started about noise and the eyesore of looking at all the towers! Sometimes you can't win for losing.

The purpose of Kyoto is NOT pollution reduction since it places no constraints on the emerging industrial nations. The purpose of Kyoto is to hamstring the economies of the West with the intention of destroying our hard-won economic advantages.

Canada should reduce pollution for Canada's sake, but to do so because your left-wing politicians think that you should be writing huge checks to third world nations every year is absurd. (this is part of the Kyoto Treaty)

If you people wish to give away Canada's economy I suppose that's your call.

Just don't cry when so many of your industries are forced to move to the USA in order to continue doing business.

Bart, did you read my first post in this thread?

$1:

Kyoto is a bill designed to punish the west while allowing developing countries carte blanche. (India and China will have no restrictions) It is merely a left-wing wealth distribution plan that actually does nothing in reference to global warming. That being said I do think we should investigate alternate means of energy and try to reduce greenhouse gasses, but not holding ALL countries to the same standard is destined for failure.

It seems that you elaborated what I had already posted! The rest of your post seemed to be an attempt to chastise me for what you ASSUMED (remember the breakdown of that word) was my support for something that I think would bankrupt Canada if it was ever implemented. We agree, Kyoto is a disaster that does nothing to address pollution!

[BartSimpson]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Sorry to disagree bootlegga, but a bad deal is not better than no deal, it is worse. Kyoto is unattainable by Canada without destroying the economy and industry. Like I said earlier, the only good environmental plan is one that treats all countries the same, no special deals, no transferring energy credits. One plan, one standard.

I have no problem with reducing pollution, emissions etc, and I am a firm believer in investigating energy resources that are "clean" ie. solar and wind power. But even these "clean" sources come with other issues which people will eventually complain about.

On Wolfe Island near Kingston they want to erect a "Wind Farm" which will generate a whole hockey sock worth of clean energy and the complaints have already started about noise and the eyesore of looking at all the towers! Sometimes you can't win for losing.

The purpose of Kyoto is NOT pollution reduction since it places no constraints on the emerging industrial nations. The purpose of Kyoto is to hamstring the economies of the West with the intention of destroying our hard-won economic advantages.

Canada should reduce pollution for Canada's sake, but to do so because your left-wing politicians think that you should be writing huge checks to third world nations every year is absurd. (this is part of the Kyoto Treaty)

If you people wish to give away Canada's economy I suppose that's your call.

Just don't cry when so many of your industries are forced to move to the USA in order to continue doing business.

Bart, did you read my first post in this thread?

$1:

Kyoto is a bill designed to punish the west while allowing developing countries carte blanche. (India and China will have no restrictions) It is merely a left-wing wealth distribution plan that actually does nothing in reference to global warming. That being said I do think we should investigate alternate means of energy and try to reduce greenhouse gasses, but not holding ALL countries to the same standard is destined for failure.

It seems that you elaborated what I had already posted! The rest of your post seemed to be an attempt to chastise me for what you ASSUMED (remember the breakdown of that word) was my support for something that I think would bankrupt Canada if it was ever implemented. We agree, Kyoto is a disaster that does nothing to address pollution!

I was not chastising you - just standing guard with you.