Trudeau Liberals and the Environment

Trevormkidd wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

You do realize that even though they had no representation in Parliament, that the Green Party and Elizabeth May were in support of the Climate Change Accountability Act (assuming you're still a Green supporter)?

Yes, the same goes for May and the Greens.

As for my support for the Greens.  I supported them when I felt that they cared enough about the environment that they would be able to accept science and reality when it slammed up against their ideology.  I was wrong, and my support for them probably ended about 7 years ago.  In my local riding, I campaigned for pro-science NDP candidate in the last provincial election.  In the last federal election, neither the local NDP candidate or the federal party itself, had any chance of getting my vote due to their anti-science positions.

Ah yes, you're the authority on all things science, and anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is "ideological" and "anti-science."

Welcome back, Trevor. It's been a while.

epaulo13 wrote:

Former CAPP veep says she doesn’t bring any bias to new Natural Resources job

Janet Annesley doesn’t back down. The new chief of staff to the federal minister of natural resources has taken on everyone from actors Robert Redford and Leonardo DiCaprio, to respected think tanks like Alberta’s Pembina Institute.

The former Shell company executive and vice-president of communications for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ (CAPP) has managed multi-million-dollar campaigns promoting the Alberta tar sands and oil interests.

And in 2011, when the Energy Framework Initiative lobbied the Harper government to cut the red tape on oil mega-projects, CAPP was one of the four groups that pushed for the dismantling of environmental regulations.

She’s sailed with climate-change deniers on Conservative Ezra Levant’s Freedom Cruise.

And now she’s landed a high-profile job at a ministry that will have to make some tough decisions in coming months over hotly-contested projects such as the Energy East and Kinder Morgan pipelines....

sad to hear this but not surprised. those who voted for the lying Liberals need to take note.

Trevormkidd wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ah yes, you're the authority on all things science, and anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is "ideological" and "anti-science."

I don't consider myself to be any such authority.  It is pretty simple though, we have a scientific community full of people with relevant expertse and they evaluate the scientific evidence.  People who are not ideologues accept that sometimes the science doesn't give the answer they would like it to give.  They change their views based on the best evidence.  Ideologues refuse to accept that science sometimes does not conform with their ideology, and so they reject the science.  Climate change deniers find the odd crackpot scientist who they agree with and ignore the scientific community.  People like you find the odd crackpot scientist who you agree with on GMOs and nuclear etc and ignore the scientific community.  There is no difference between the reactionary, anti-enlightenment, anti-science people on either side.  Both cause significant harm.

 

I think much of this is true.

And we should remember that while science has got us into the mess we are in (along with overpopulation) since also offers the best chances of mitigating.

When it comes to GMOs I am not a big fan of these arguments. Same with Vacines. There are always example of people acting irresponsibly or for profit against the public interest. These can be identified to call for wholesale bans that really are nonsensical.

In the end we lose the benefit of advocacy for responsible science by having people take extremes. A lot of good can be done but so can a lot of harm. But doing nothing can also be harmful given the rest of human activity. So the most sensible thing is more informed debate about responsibility, openness, moderation, testing, public information. Wholesale bans are in my view countrer productive.

On GMOs, for example, I think things that have been modified probably should be labeled -- but I don't mean mark it GMO so nobody buys it -- but state what it was that was done. The detail could be published online. Then people can see what they want to support and what they do not. They can see some of the benefits and they can question when there is no benefit to the public or the environment etc. As well the ownership of food is a serious question muddied by the desire to stop any "tampering" with nature.

Humans are already tampering with nature and you cannot roll that back. If we can modify plants to help reduce CO2, grow on water in the oceans --why not? But do it responsibly.

I really dislike the extremes in this debate and I know poeple on both sides personally which makes the discussions awkward.

I am a big fan of science and reasearch -- it is the only thing that *might* save us now anyway.

Of course I do prefer public, not-for-profit and academic science --esp discovery science over an emphasis on private for-profit science but you actually do need both and rational policies that make it possible without abuse.

mark_alfred wrote:

Well, I finally heard something back from Trudeau's office regarding the letter I sent (described in post #8).  Here's what I received from them:

Trudeau's office wrote:

Dear mark_alfred:

Thank you for your e-mail to the Prime Minister.

Please be assured that your comments have been noted and that they will receive due consideration from the Minister, whom you also addressed in your correspondence.

Once again, thank you for writing.

J.P. Vachon

Manager/Gestionnaire

Executive Correspondence Services

for the Prime Minister's Office

So, I now await Catherine McKenna's response. 

ETA:  Feel free to reread the response I got from Mulcair (post #12) and compare it to what I've so far received from the Liberals.  A significant difference so far.

I don't think the response indicates that you will get another from the minister nor do I think it is reasonable to expect more. A lot more people write to the government than do to the 3rd place party. I got answers from the Liberals when they were in 3rd place too. Mulcair's response sounds like he is still campaigning which he is. He still has the leadership review to pass.

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

Of course you are correct and the Liberal Zealot ignores the fact that the governing party may get a lot more requests but also has a lot more resources and, as the government, gets to decide on how many more resourses are deployed to responding to the people.

The Liberal Zealot merely deflects from her insistance on a different standard for the Father, the Son and the Holy Liberal Party than the NDP.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

Of course you are correct and the Liberal Zealot ignores the fact that the governing party may get a lot more requests but also has a lot more resources and, as the government, gets to decide on how many more resourses are deployed to responding to the people.

The Liberal Zealot merely deflects from her insistance on a different standard for the Father, the Son and the Holy Liberal Party than the NDP.

Prior to the election, when you were both a member and eager volunteer, you couldn't get a response from anyone with the NDP.

The "response" from the NDP (post 12) is "signed" by Tom Mulcair. It is obviously a non-commital form letter and I don't believe it was written or sent by Tom Mulcair but there is no other name in the message.

I said not to expect a further response from CM so it's not like I am praising the Liberals. To me their response says it will be passed along to her office so she will get the message, opinion noted. There is nothing in the letter for her to respond to.

The response was signed by Vachon which I prefer. (Post 60)

Sean, your grudge is showing again.

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post # 61

Unreasonable?  Government is there for the people.  Anyway, the PM's office stated the letter will receive due consideration from McKenna.  She was sent it and presumably will get back to me.

Of course you are correct and the Liberal Zealot ignores the fact that the governing party may get a lot more requests but also has a lot more resources and, as the government, gets to decide on how many more resourses are deployed to responding to the people.

The Liberal Zealot merely deflects from her insistance on a different standard for the Father, the Son and the Holy Liberal Party than the NDP.

Prior to the election, when you were both a member and eager volunteer, you couldn't get a response from anyone with the NDP.

The "response" from the NDP (post 12) is "signed" by Tom Mulcair. It is obviously a non-commital form letter and I don't believe it was written or sent by Tom Mulcair but there is no other name in the message.

I said not to expect a further response from CM so it's not like I am praising the Liberals. To me their response says it will be passed along to her office so she will get the message, opinion noted. There is nothing in the letter for her to respond to.

The response was signed by Vachon which I prefer. (Post 60)

Sean, your grudge is showing again.

You miss the point as usual.

The issue is, as I said, that the government decides what resources go to responding to Canadians and you defense of government not responding is disgusting. You likely would not be able to get this becuase your knee jerk defence of anything the Liberals do prevents you.

Yep I have a grudge against your persona here which is little more than a predictable and boring Liberal propaganda feed.

mark_alfred wrote:

The response from the Liberals is fine for now.  They haven't rejected my wishes, and promised to give them "due consideration", so that's good.  I hope to hear from the Liberals in the future that they will do as I wish, which is to enact,

mark_alfred's letter wrote:

a climate change accountability law that enshrines Canada's targets for greenhouse gas reductions into law.

Targets should binding and enforceable rather than merely aspirational.  It's too important.

I think public pressure is important.  This government looks like it potentially could do the right thing if it feels the public is onside.  I'm pleased the NDP too is advocating for us on this issue in its role of opposition within the House.  Hopefully the Liberals will do the right thing.

This raises a good point: The Liberals may not be trusted to do the right thing but it is clear that they are listening to the public and if people advocate well and there is a strong opinion on something there is a good chance it will be reflected in policy.

The weakness of this would of course be that the louder more powerful voices tend to prevail.

When it comes to the environment there is some hope as this issue does include some loud voices as it does cut across all income and wealth groups even if there are a disproportionate number of people on the profit-at-any-cost side. When it comes to purely economic divisions things are less hopeful. While most people will get disadvantaged byt he so-called middle class tax cut, the voices of the minority who will take advantage will be loudest. Even organized labour may find that many of their members fall among those with a benefit. This is the kind of issue where Liberal instincts are relevant rather than just the ability to hear. The people who are working and many struggling who do not qualify for assistance are not loud enough. Many of those in the middle class falling below may be unwilling as well to publicly disclose their salaries where as those below the middle class, who may not function in circles where teht would be a problem simply do not have a voice that would be heard.

I am not sure I remember any other tax cut aimed like this one to the upper middle class leaving out everyone underneath yet including all the rhetoric to suggest those people were getting a benefit. It raised the question of course of how intentional this missing of the target was. It either is colossal incompetence or dishonesty and we get to choose which while wondering if one is better than the other.

mark_alfred wrote:

Two recent exchanges in the House of Commons on the Environment yesterday (Jan 28, 2016).  

Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) wrote:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be meeting with her provincial counterparts to talk about climate change. Since returning from Paris, the minister has not told us what Canada's targets are. Yesterday, the minister announced that impact on climate change would be a component of pipeline project assessments, but she said nothing about acceptable greenhouse gas emissions targets.    

Can the minister tell us if the government is planning to introduce ambitious new targets or carry on with the old Conservative ones?

Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.) wrote:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.    

We need a pan-Canadian plan to tackle climate change. That is what we are working on. I am very pleased to be meeting with my colleagues from all corners of the country today to talk about the plan.

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) wrote:

Mr. Speaker, in December, at the climate change conference in Paris, Canada committed to a 1.5-degree rise in global temperature. Yesterday the minister announced pipeline reviews that would include climate tests but could not say what a pass or fail would actually look like. A test only matters if they know how they are being graded.    

The minister knows full well that current provincial efforts are not enough to meet the weak goal that Canada currently has. Canadians want to know the real impact a climate test could have for a government that does not even have a climate target.

Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.) wrote:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for joining me in Paris at the climate conference and also for his useful comments.    

We are committed to taking action on climate change. That is why I am meeting today with my colleagues from across the country to talk about what a pan-Canadian plan would be. It would be irresponsible to come up with a new target without actually having a plan to implement it, as the Conservatives did.

From your comments I see that you consider the government's answer satisfactory. I join you in that respect!

From the full interview:

http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/blogs/community-conversations-1.752422...

Beech: Sure, and again, I know this is a talking point, but this commitment is serious, and we should continue to say it as often as we can the prime minister has committed and said repeatedly “government issue permits, but only communities can grant permission,” and we’re standing by that.

Moreau: But what if this community doesn’t grant permission? The city of Burnaby is against it, the mayor is against it, we’ve got a number of residents against it, you’ve got people protesting outside the NEB hearings against it.

Beech: That is exactly what the government and the house will have to take into consideration when it comes down to making a decision.

- See more at: http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/blogs/community-conversations-1.752422...

There are two possibilities. It's a sham and they plan to allow it or they need political cover to turn it down.

well now what a difference this report is to the msm reports.

Yes Site-C is in the works as well as the Kinder Morgan pipeline to Metro Vancouver.  This government will do nothing except pay lip service to the environment. If corporate Canada wants a project bad enough their water-boy Justin will deliver it for them.