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.
Tory's Re-Reject Emmissions Targets
February 2, 2007 - 10:25am
Sounds like the NDP deal is dead (it better be).
And we once again have more truth that the Con's don't care about Kyoto.
As result of the Liberals doing absolutely NOTHING to reduce GHG emissions during their 13 years in office, everyone knows that it is totally impossible to make up for all that wasted time and to have Canada actually hit the Kyoto target by 2012. We are so far behind that it would literally mean that just in the next 5 years GHGF emissions would have to drop about 40% from where they are at right now.
None of the parties, not the Liberals, not the Conservatives, not the BQ, not even the NDP, will actually come out and tell the truth which is that to actually make that drastic a reduction in that short a time would mean bringing in some laws that would be political suicide in Canada. These might include:
*a massive increase in the gas tax to get people to drive less
*bringing in 3rd world style measures that say you can only drive on even numbered or odd-numbered days
*instant emissions controls on industry that would be so drastic that a lot of whole industrial sectors would probably have to shut down in order for the emissions to drop that much in so few years.
*big increases in household electricity and gas bills so that we all start paying the REAL cost of of those things instead of living in this fictious subsidized world where we all expect dirt cheap power that we can waste all we want
*more reliance on nuclear power - one source of energy which does not produce greenhouse gases (though it is bad for the environment in other ways)
IF the Liberals had set in motion a plan to curb GHG emissions back when Kyoto was first signed it is POSSIBLE that we MIGHT have had a chance to hit those targets by 2012. But because the Liberals frittered away 13 years doing nothing, that window of opportunity is gone.
Its quite amusing to see Dion denouncing Harper for not making an ironclad commitment to meet the Kyoto targets by 2012, when secretely Dion is damn glad he isn't in power and under the gun to meet those commitments that he knows full well cannot be met.
After reading the news over the past few days climate change articles seem to be everywhere.
Personally, I am hoping for a federal consumer carbon tax on natural gas, heating oil, gasoline and electricity (in addition of course to other industry related measures). Something like 5%-8% each year for the next ten years (50%-80% after ten years). This would be offset by a federal income tax reduction.
This would encourage people to make reasonable planned changes knowing their future energy costs.
But I'm probably being too optimistic re the Cons but maybe Jack could push this.
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]
I realize that even these targets are ambitious and require some pain and sacrifice, but I think Canadians are ready to do their part. I'd love to see the NDP come forward with a real & realistic plan.
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]
Personally, I am not hoping for this, it is not a feasible plan. And the impact of an 50-80% carbon tax, could NOT be off set by federal income tax reductions.
And what are you thinking could possibly be "reasonable planned changes knowing their future energy costs"?
If it is well defined that all forms of energy are going to go up sharply over the next several years, then people can modify their habits, especially re the bigger stuff that only gets done every few years.
Obviously, someone can drive less or turn more lights off starting today.
Re income tax offset, a carbon tax would be unpopular enough without an offset of some kind. So why not an income tax cut? It could easily be shaped to cut more at lower income levels.
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]
How about a rebate that is tied to income. For low income folks, a very high rebate. For upper income folks, no rebate. Scale it in some fair manner. That way we don't create social havoc, and we can get something done.
That said, it'll be meaningless unless we create a total cap on emissions for the country, including consumer and industrial emissions. I'd support a ration for everyone - if you don't use it sell it to Exxon...
Talk about an incentive, make it a money making or saving opportunity.
But if we don't cap and reduce industrial emissions, especially the tar sands, then we might as well just give up.
It's clear both the NDP and conservatives would have to compromise for any working deal. How much are NDP supporters willing to compromise.
Would you accept a scientifically sound 50% reduction by 2050 if specific processes were legislated as well?
that would be just for starters.
The ONE thing I'm not flexible on is a MINIMUM CAP for 2008, meaning 2008 levels are NO higher than 2007. Then a system that starts reducing the cap on a yearly basis.
The #1 reason all of the other details are not as important as this is that they all have the ability to be shifted, moved, and we end up with a vague 50% by 2050 that we cannot hold TODAY'S government, business, and citizens directly responsible for.
Well, some aren't prepared to compromise at all because they believe the job of the NDP is to advance the electoral interests of the Liberal Party. Of course, those people aren't really NDP supporters. Or real progressives for that matter.
The big variable is the elephant in the room. Are the original Kyoto targets even achievable, given the years of Liberal negligence? In effect, we are looking at emissions at 94% of 1990 levels. We are currently at 130% of 1990 levels. That means reduction of 28% from current levels in 5 years.
On that basis, a somewhat lower target (meaning lower emissions, hence a more far reaching target) over a somewhat longer time fram might be appropriate. But I think 50% over 42 years is too long a window for Jack to sell to his members. Had the Liberals actually done anything at all, we'd be, say, five years farther down the road. So, if we talked in terms of, say, 35% reduction by 2017 (15.5% below 1990 levels in ten years), or 50% reduction by 2025 (35% below 1990 levels in 18 years), that might be saleable - particularly if the Liberals are held responsible for the 5 / 13 year delay.
But I'm not sure even that is saleable.
The problem with either of those proposals, politically, is that the Liberals would trumpet them as a sell-out of Kyoto, even though it is their own neglect, corruption and incompetence that have (arguably at least) rendered the Kyoto targets unattainable.
Well, I sorta thought that the majority people were already doing those things, if they could afford to, that is. And re-locating closer to work is not always possible. Plus, you are putting a burden onto individuals, that is actually industry's burden.
However, in that vein I would put forth my thoughts on this.
First I would like to see less semi-truck transportation of goods and products across the country and more of a reliance on rail transport. We have a railway system that is NOT being used to highest and best capabilities. The environmental benefits, as opposed to more trucking are significant. Of course, that creates unemployment so...
This does not acknowledge, or address, those whose income does not even allow them to change their lighting from incandescent to florescent, which would be a huge cost saving for them alone.
Again shunting the burden to individuals instead of industry. Notwithstanding, people are pretty energy savvy these days and many are most likely doing that.
Lower, and lowest incomes, often do not pay any income taxes, or not much to speak of, how are they going to get back what they do not pay?
arborman's rebate is more plausible, and would not unfairly impact those who cannot afford to make changes in appliances, or lighting, or vehicle purchases.
Maybe there are some who need prompting, like those who use air conditioners in the summer to make their house cooler than they have it in the winter, and those who want to walk around their house in shorts and tee in the winter, having it hotter than they would in the summer.
However, unless meaningful caps are put on industry, and the worst polluters forced to change and go greener, individuals should not bear the costs or full ramifications.
My partner and I, discussed today what more we could do, as we already have cut our personal footprint by huge amounts, and do not really feel we are a problem to the environment. Having said that, what we have done and will do for our share of the responsibility is as follows, because one can always do more if one can.
We have a southern exposure, so we can easily install solar panels on the south roof slope, something that we have long talked about, but never have done. So, we are working that into our 3 year plan. Also, we are going to research and build a wind mill, that would be devoted to operating our water pump for our well, and over flow energy would channel to the house.
Realistically, this does not mean much in the larger scheme, as our hydro is only 200 per month in the winter, and we use hydro to heat our 3200+ sq ft home. However, we could afford; energy efficient furnace, lighting and appliances, not all are so priviledged, and may need to start there. We spend less than 80/month on gas for the vehicles, unless we have a trip somewhere, and then we use our 4 cylinder Nissan that gets ridiculously good miledge.
Our largest footprint comes by way of consuming food that has to be trucked in, for that to decrease, we have to become more self-sufficient with fresh produce, and buy more locally. Even then we have lessened our consumption transportation costs by eating wild game instead of mass produced meat, and by purchasing eggs and produce locally.
Being environmentally conscious, is actually a lifestyle, not just turning off the switch. And I would like to see programs developed to teach individuals a new lifestyle. And still others to supply those who cannot afford things that would help them lessening their foot print, before taxing them to death literally perhaps. For example, florescent light bulbs, do much to lower hydro costs. If incandescent and halogen bulbs were taxed higher, or phased out, much energy could be saved.
To assist with this each home owner, could be given $100 to buy all new florescent bulbs, receipts must be submitted for them within 90 days kinda thing to ensure money is spent correctly. It could even be a vouchure that they could take to the store to get them, and the store submitts it to the government, or deduct amounts from their monthly GST/PST submissions.
Retro fitting of older homes for better insulation, and windows/doors, could also have subsidies from all levels of government, that people could access. Cost savings from hydro, gas/oil could be targeted back to the government even, until a % is paid off. This could also be an economic boon and a net employee producer.
Anyway those are just some of my thoughts on what the government could do to assist individuals who need it.
Whether this is realistic or not does not make a whit of difference to them. It is in their interests to set the bar at a point where others will have to fail. They both want to prevent an NDP-Consevative agreement, even if it is legitimately historic, because it could be bad for their own electoral interests.
Stick a compact floursecent into that
In the words of someone far more articulate than I, "we are so fucked."
I see. What would a "historic" agreement look like that "admits" that Kyoto is "unattainable" (wasn't Rona Ambrose the discoverer of that "historic" truth?)?
We now have four parties involved in narrow-minded partisan chicanery over the environment, and you want the NDP to be number 5?
The NDP declared in November that adherence to Kyoto is a must (even though Layton's private member's bill didn't mention it, as it took Bill C-288 as a given). If the NDP were to follow the advice of some on this board and abandon that pledge for the sake of christ knows what short-term advantage, then it can rightly kiss goodbye to any shred of credibility on the issue of the environment.
Again, the point, and the most important thing about creating laws specifically tailored to meeting the Kyoto targets is that doing so ratifies, in parliment, the principle of Kyoto, and most importantly the principle of international regulation. Not doing so, or not attempting to do so undermines the whole principle of international environemental legislation at its root.
Far more important in all of this is establishing parlimentary approval of Kyoto, and the whole principle of international regulation. Not doing so, further undermines those principles.
The elphant in the room, achievability, is a chimera, and irrelvant to the argument for Kyoto.
That is absolute horse shit, and I personally take offense.
Exactly, not only does the bending to the CPC 42 year window, not make sense, not utlizing what we already had makes even less.
I agree. But I also think is all too little too late unless all nations introduce tough, meaningful legislation. And that is very unlikely.
Well, I sorta thought that the majority people were already doing those things, if they could afford to, that is. And re-locating closer to work is not always possible. Plus, you are putting a burden onto individuals, that is actually industry's burden.
I like and agreed with most of your reply but I suspect that you are already relative to most people very environmently aware. Also, at the risk of annoying you, I would suggest that perhaps you are a bit too idealistic re people.
In my opinion, most people in cities, in the middle class, until recently are not even thinking about energy use. And these are a lot of people - just look at the size of the cars, vans, etc.
I argue for the graduated and increasing over time carbon tax as it would wake these people up and not allow them to revert when climate change is replaced by the next trendy item.
Also, I think I said this, but the tax is in addition to (not instead of) other measures such as industry controls, overall limits, etc.
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]
Globules and Milk
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
I recently upgraded mine, and here are the actual energy ratings:
old 24" CRT 170 watts in use, 1 watt standby
new 40" LCD 200 watts in use, .1 watt standby.
The 40" uses more when in use but not by a lot. If I had replaced a more common 27" it would probably the same or a little less. Also, note the standby usage (a 90% reduction).
I'm retired and a fan of older movies. So the 40" looked good to me.
TV fans often argue LCD vs plasma, however the LCD technology is gradually winning the mass market for small(32") to medium market(40-42") flat planel sets.
I have a friend with an older 42" plasma, he is able to turn down his furnace when watching a long TV show or movie as his TV heats up the room so much. (I suppose there is a energy tradeoff here. The opposite in the summer of course.)
This helps to make my carbon tax arguement, if electricity is getting more and more expensive people will tend to make it a greater factor in their purchase decisions.
[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]