babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Tories ending climate change programs
April 1, 2006 - 1:05pm
What a surprise here.
Conservative government to create own one tonne challenge.
How to spin one tonne of bullshit onto an ever gullible public and win a majority government next election.
Funny how the public isn't "gullible" when they vote NDP though, eh?
Forty per cent of this year's budget for climate change programs has been slashed from the departments of Natural Resources and Environment , CBC News has learned.
The cuts include the much-advertised One Tonne Challenge, 40 public information offices across the country and several scientific and research programs on climate change.
"If it's not in the taxpayers' interest to fund programs that are not effective, then we are not going to," said Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.
- snip -
"We will lose researchers, we will lose funding partners, we will lose a number of industries that have been looking at opportunities to move to, for example, new energy sources," said Layzell.
Environmental groups are furious at the cuts, pointing out the longer Canada takes to form a climate change plan the less likely Canada will keep its Kyoto promises.
"We're the only country that's ratified Kyoto that's cutting back on its spending on climate change," said John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada.
The government said it will come up with its own new climate change plan within the next few months.
- 30 -
What an ignorant dick Lunn is. If the bottom line for the Cons is effectiveness and results, then probably they will cut funds to cancer and heart disease researchers, too. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 06 April 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Sierra Club of Canada
You would think, but the problem is the strategists in the opposition parties are no more informed on nor committed to fighting climate change then the Harpies. So what is the risk?
The Harpies were weak and without any real environmental platform in the last election, yet, they got a free ride from the NDP and the Liberals. The reason being, Layton, for example, was stumping about talking about pollution like it was 1977.
The opposition, I am afraid, just doesn't get it. I would even hazard a guess that the Harpies get even more but just don't give a shit because their corporate backers tell them thar's gold in that thar melt. Which is true. But they are reaching into a deep, dark well to try and get something shiny and when they fall in we all go with them.
You would think, but the problem is the strategists in the opposition parties are no more informed on nor committed to fighting climate change then the Harpies. So what is the risk?
-
Huh? The former government (Liberals) funded all these programs that were just chopped by the Conservatives.
We could have emphasized environmental issues more. But we did call for a 25 percent reduction in GHGs from 1990 levels by 2020. And unlike the Liberals we have a strategy to get at least partway there. Considering global warming wasn't talked about much in 1977 I fail to see what the reference is.
This almost seems to be a move to get rid of as many climate change programs as possible, without any public backlash. It almost seems to be a move to enable the government to cut environmental programs again, without public backlash. How many more programs are going to be cut by Harper over the course of his government?
This is a deep wound, but it's pretty minor considering he could chop the whole arm off.
Huh? I'm talking about optics here. There's only one party cutting 40% of the budget of climate change programs. Who cares what the others are doing? Anyone who agrees with this kind of thing is probably already voting Conservative. When Canadians pick up the paper and see this, do you really think there'll be no reaction? No hardening of resistence to the idea of a Con majority? No group of voters, small yet crucial, thinking, "Oh no, I made a terrible mistake voting for the Conservative party. They don't care about the environment."?
I can't see it, but hey, I've been wrong before.
She went on yesterday I think it was in QP and said the Cons will replace the current funding with funding on programs that will actually be transparent so taxpayers can see what they're getting for their money. Ambrose pisses me off. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
And do you seriously thing that any of these programs, even if implemented, would change future temperatures by so much as one tenth of one centigrade? Whoever designed these programs has an incredibly good sense of humour.
Yeah, but in truth, as much as they might have raised awareness, on the real nuts and bolts the Liberals were as committed to fighting climate change as Harper is to real transparence in government.
Department of Finance officials are confirming that a whole new list of environmental programs are losing their funding as a result of this week's federal budget.
Among the best known is the Energuide program, in which Canadians who have their homes renovated to save energy can qualify for a federal grant of several thousand dollars.
About 300,000 people have used the program since its start in the late 1990s.
A home retrofitted under the program cuts its energy use by an average of 30 per cent.
But Energuide has had its budget slashed by $227 million over the next five years. Groups that run the program say it will be a shadow of its former self and a lot fewer people will be able to take advantage of it
There's also a similar Energuide program for low-income households. Its entire budget of more than $550 million is cut, meaning that program is now gone.
Four other environmental programs have lost most, or all, of their funding. They include everything from money to develop new kinds of renewable energy, to a program to help people switch to more efficient furnaces.
- snip -
Shit. This is horrid for the environment (and us) but the blatant neo-con ideology --- [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Classic hate the poor, I've got mine FUCK you and yours.
Idiots. Freakin' lost in the 50's can't see no horizon, long as the wealthy are happy utter freakin' morons.
Look, climate change is real. There is no scientific debate - climate science follows the most rigorous peer review process in existence, bar none. I'm not exaggerating either - a climate article has as many as 1000 reviewers before it sees the light of day.
THe deniers are those who benefit from inaction, or people paid by them.
Any political party, and particularly any governing party, that actively undermines, denies or otherwise blocks attempts to address and mitigate global warming will be a footnote in the history books 20 years from now.
Every thing they do, keep track of it. Dates, times, what they said to whom, what they cut. The academic and scientific evidence is clear. Public opinion is clear.
A time will come, probably in the next few years, when some major climate induced disaster will happen right here in Canada. That will be the end of the Conservative party, if they keep doing what they are doing now.
I just wish it didn't take a major disaster to get people angry.
What do you mean?
oh, and btw, I won the one tonne challenge.
[ 09 May 2006: Message edited by: zak4amnesty ]
They also talk about the IPCC draft that the US gov't leaked before its time; here's Comment No.4 in the discussion:
IPCC draft: No comment.Oh, and zak4, way to go on the one tonne challenge. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 09 May 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]
Well, wasn't Katrina caused by God's wrath at gays? Or the Supreme Court's decision against the 10 commandments in lower courts? Or, no wait, it was the drunken debauchery of Mardi Gras. I heard it was something like that.
Bull cwap. I would have known if that were the case. Just tonight via personal e-mail I learned:
I have it from good inside sources that the oiligarchs in Alberduh "won" the challenge.
I gave up my car 15 months ago and have not missed it at all. In fact, my quality of life has improved significantly.
The one ton challenge was fundamentally flawed - it was focused on individual behaviour. That's only a part of the equation - to effect real change requires regulation. The Liberals, pathetically, shied away from anything of the sort.
I'm not sad to see the ineffectual programs promoted by the Liberals get dropped, though it affects our household personally (arborwoman was working on one of them). I'm sad to see nothing that's going to make a scrap of difference in their place.
I'd say that the destruction of Katrina was the turning point for GWB. That was when his approval ratings started sinking, and they haven't stopped yet. His disapproval ratings have risen to 65%. Harper could learn something from that, but he won't.
since we are blueskying a disaster, imagine this:
its well documented that the glaciers in AB/BC Rockies are shrinking, some say they have lost 25% of their mass this past century.
over the past 20-30 years, demands on this water have increased thanks to:
Increased agricultural irrigation
More water for more ranching and larger herds
And now, needs of the oilsands
Imagine a drought in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Not that unusual. Now suppose its a hig one.
Ruined crops, dying herds and a lot of lost investment, destroying people's savinsg, pensions and what not. It would painful for a lot of people and yeah, it would make Harper and Co. appear rather foolish.
Unfortunatly, it would be a difficult situation to "fix".