Comments on: Harper: Embarrassing and Defeatist http://www.christindal.ca/2007/09/24/harper-embarrassing-and-defeatist/ Candidate for city councillor, Ward 27, Toronto Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:07:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Lord Kitchener's Own http://www.christindal.ca/2007/09/24/harper-embarrassing-and-defeatist/comment-page-1/#comment-3325 Lord Kitchener's Own Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:59:04 +0000 http://www.christindal.ca/2007/09/24/harper-embarrassing-and-defeatist/#comment-3325 What absolutely floors me is Harper's suggestion that we LEAD on Climate Change by suggesting a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050. Meanwhile, the U.K. commited to a <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2032710,00.html" rel="nofollow"><b>60% reduction in emissions by 2050</b></a> way back in March. Meanwhile, in Britain, opposition parties said of the 60% reduction by 2050 "We may well need to aim more towards about 80%, but it's a good first start and the framework is broadly right" and some called the 60% reduction "dangerously unambitious". Even the British Tories called upon the legislation to be strengthened with YEARLY targets rather than a simple cummulative 60% reduction! So, a centrist British government is getting pressure from the left, AND the right to do better than their current legislation, which is ALREADY 10% ahead of Harper's plan! This is our Prime Minister's "leadership"??? How exactly are we supposed to "lead" from the back of the line??? What absolutely floors me is Harper’s suggestion that we LEAD on Climate Change by suggesting a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050. Meanwhile, the U.K. commited to a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 way back in March.

Meanwhile, in Britain, opposition parties said of the 60% reduction by 2050 “We may well need to aim more towards about 80%, but it’s a good first start and the framework is broadly right” and some called the 60% reduction “dangerously unambitious”. Even the British Tories called upon the legislation to be strengthened with YEARLY targets rather than a simple cummulative 60% reduction!

So, a centrist British government is getting pressure from the left, AND the right to do better than their current legislation, which is ALREADY 10% ahead of Harper’s plan! This is our Prime Minister’s “leadership”???

How exactly are we supposed to “lead” from the back of the line???

]]> By: Timothy Webster http://www.christindal.ca/2007/09/24/harper-embarrassing-and-defeatist/comment-page-1/#comment-3313 Timothy Webster Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:07:26 +0000 http://www.christindal.ca/2007/09/24/harper-embarrassing-and-defeatist/#comment-3313 Harper is correct eventually market forces, technical and social innovation will correct the excess and inefficient energy consumption in Canada. Eventually after he leaves office. His government is effectively standing in the way. Kyoto is an incentive based measure of increased energy efficiency. Our competitiveness will increasing suffer in comparison with the more energy efficient Asian world. We can see the ability to compete decreasing, why wait until we are uncompetitive. Unfortunately technical and social innovation takes time to effect energy efficiency. And if you believe that we eventually need to increase our energy efficiency to compete with the more energy efficient world, then why delay. By delaying Harper is only increasing the shock the economy will suffer because of the time delay. Harper is correct eventually market forces, technical and social innovation will correct the excess and inefficient energy consumption in Canada. Eventually after he leaves office. His government is effectively standing in the way. Kyoto is an incentive based measure of increased energy efficiency. Our competitiveness will increasing suffer in comparison with the more energy efficient Asian world. We can see the ability to compete decreasing, why wait until we are uncompetitive.

Unfortunately technical and social innovation takes time to effect energy efficiency. And if you believe that we eventually need to increase our energy efficiency to compete with the more energy efficient world, then why delay. By delaying Harper is only increasing the shock the economy will suffer because of the time delay.

]]>