Green Tories - Canadian Conservatives Care

The purpose of this blog is to post positve conservative, incentive based solutions to overcome global environmental challenges. To explore free market solutions that will work to make this a greener world.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Canada labelled 'fossil' at climate change talks

Canada took its lumps at the UN climate conference in Kenya Monday, tying with Australia in a "fossil of the day" award while being ranked near the bottom of an environmental group's list for efforts to combat global warming.

Opposition MPs and environmentalists from Canada, meanwhile, struck a common theme at a news conference in Nairobi, saying the federal government's lukewarm position on the Kyoto Protocol doesn't reflect Canadian public opinion.

"The majority of Canadians are firmly and strongly behind living up to our Kyoto obligations," said John Godfrey, the Liberal environment critic.

"We are here because we want the world to know that Canadians are united in their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol," said Emilie Moorehouse of the Sierra Club.

Bloc Québécois environment critic Bernard Bigras quoted federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose as saying "we are on track to meeting all our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol but not the targets."

"I don't think that's the position parliamentarians expect from the minister of the environment," he said.

A news release from Ambrose's office says the minister will highlight Canada's "first-ever legislative plan to address air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions" after she arrives in Nairobi on Tuesday.

It is apparently a reference to the Clean Air Act, which has been unanimously opposed by opposition parties and is unlikely to become law in its present form.

In an unusual move, the bill is being sent to a parliamentary committee before its second reading because opposition MPs don't support it even in principle.

Environmental group scolds Canada
The fossil award was distributed by the environmental group Climate Action Network to countries deemed to have contributed the least to progress in the climate talks.

And a Bonn-based development group, Germanwatch, placed Canada 51st out of 56 countries that were assessed for their performance and policies on climate change.

"Frankly, it's becoming embarrassing," said Steven Guilbault of Greenpeace.

Sweden, Britain and Denmark won top ranking in the report, while Canada is among the bottom 10.

The only countries ranked below Canada are Kazakhstan, United States, China, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.The only countries ranked below Canada are Kazakhstan, United States, China, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.

The report ranks 56 countries that were part of a 1992 climate treaty or that contribute at least one per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the world. The countries make up 90 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

The calculations took into account emissions levels, emissions trends and climate policy.

About one-quarter of the energy consumed in Sweden in 2003 came from renewable sources — more than four times as much as the European Union average of six per cent, according to EU statistics.

The country with the worst ranking was Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter.

Kyoto treaty rejected by U.S., Australia
The United States and Australia are the only major industrialized countries to reject the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which calls for mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases.

Canada, as a signatory to the treaty, promised to reduce emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

However, the Conservative government has said the country cannot meet Kyoto targets for pollution reduction — a position that critics see as a virtual abandonment of the treaty, even though Canada hasn't formally pulled out.

The Conservatives have opted to concentrate on clean air and smog reduction, rather than the wider problem of climate change. Ambrose has set a goal of cutting emissions by 45 to 65 per cent from 2003 levels — by the year 2050

4 Comments:

At 7:15 PM, Blogger Cranky or Just A Cranky said...

This is just like bebing at the UN and having Libya or Sudan lecture on human rights.

I have been around quite a bit, lived abraod for a few years, etc. and cannot believe for one second that there are five let alone over fifty countries that are cleaner, etc. than Canada. In fact ouside of Canada, Australia and US who are the so called bottom feeding dinos, there is probably no other country that I could see living in (other than mayber NZ). My quick search couldn't find what gardens of eden topped Canada on the list, but I am pretty sure that I wouldn't want to live in any of them.

Have you ever tried to drink the sludge that passes for tap water in most of Europe?

Have you seen the exhaust that comes out of European cars? Safety isn't the only reason that most of them cannot be imported into North America?

I think that we need to take the criticism with a block or two of salt. Just because the Euros have gone down the dead-end of Kyoto doesn't mean we have to.

The government should follow through on issues like Nox, particulates and groundwater contaminants which are real issues that affect people.

Anthropogenic warming from CO2 is still an unproven theory and if if accepted has a net mitigation cost far less than its prevention cost. Kyoto is just a wealth re-distribution scheme that does not solve anything since only a few countries have signed on to cap emission - roughly one-sixth of the world even if you were to count the US. The caps imposed did nothing to recognize whether a country was alreadt frugal inits emissions or had a growing or declining population. This leads to the current perverse situation where the collapse of Russian population, combined with the fact that they were probably the most inefficient user of hydrocarbons in the world leads to it getting the other treaty members to pay for credits to modernize the Russian infrastructure system by buying emission credits so that they can be somewhere near as efficient as Canada was 10 years ago.

I could go on but I need to get home to supper. I'll try to resume my rant later.

 
At 1:16 PM, Blogger David Wozney said...

Carbon dioxide released by man near ground level is heavier than air and sinks in air rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas. While sinking, it stratifies from air. After sinking and stratifying, it tends to remain close to the ground and may find its way down to low-lying water bodies or down to ocean level where it can mix and react with water to form weak carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is also removed from the lower atmosphere by rainfall.

 
At 10:34 PM, Blogger Brian C said...

As a new Green member, I found the shenanigans of the enviro groups to be extreme. Is it appropriate to rate out energy use on a per-capita basis vs a more appropriate geographical size basis? Perhaps I am one of the few people who have been driven away from the Sierra Club-style stunts and back towards the Conservatives. However, I do hope that Ambrose does come up with some good near term emission targets in January. Of all policy areas, this is one that the Conservatives want to give the impression that they are TOO tough.

 
At 3:12 PM, Blogger Tuco said...

As this is a fairly green blog, any interest in signing a petition regarding the promotion of cycling?
http://www.gopetition.com/online/10170.html

We have about 1300 signatures and are hoping to have it read in the HOuse in the winter.
Take care.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home