Canada Kyoto
Post
19/04/07, Steven Chase, Ottawa rolls out 'validators' to bolster anti-Kyoto stand, Source.
19/04/07, Tenille Boboguore, Kyoto would 'manufacture a recession': Baird, Source.
28/04/07, Globe, Al Gore says Tories' green plan a 'fraud', Source.
28/04/07, Editorial, The Kyoto quandary, Source.
28/04/07, Globe, Text of Baird's response to Gore, Source.
27/04/07, John M. Broder & Marjorie Connelly, Public Remains Split on Response to Warming, Source.
19/04/07, Steven Chase, Ottawa rolls out 'validators' to bolster anti-Kyoto stand, (Back).
OTTAWA — The Harper government has secured a high-profile endorsement of its position that Canada's economy would be crippled if it was forced to meet the Kyoto accord's timetable for cutting greenhouse gases.
On Thursday, federal Environment Minister John Baird will unveil a new study by his department that suggests complying with the Kyoto Protocol would hit Canada hard, a report that is certain to draw swift criticism from environmentalists.
The Conservatives are trying to add credence to the report, however, by also releasing an opinion from Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond that effectively backs their findings.
“I believe the economic cost would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s, and indeed that is the result your department's analysis shows,” Mr. Drummond writes in a letter to Mr. Baird obtained by The Globe and Mail.
The Tories are expected to unveil additional opinions by experts, whom they call “validators,” as they attempt to refute Bill C-288, a bill opposition parties pushed through the Commons in February.
It attempts to force the Harper government to meet Canada's targets under the Kyoto accord for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
Mr. Drummond's letter appears to be a political boon for the Tories, and a blow for the Liberals, as parties gird themselves for the possibility of an election campaign fought on hot-button issues such as Kyoto.
It will be difficult for the Liberals to attack Mr. Drummond, a senior Canadian economist whom political parties, including Mr. Dion's, have consulted over the years. He wasn't paid for this latest opinion, which the Tories solicited from him.
Thursday's announcement also lays the groundwork for the Tories' own plan to fight climate change: one outside the Kyoto accord timetable.
Kyoto's obligations would require massive action by Ottawa because under the accord, Canada is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions an average of 6 per cent below 1990 levels in each year, 2008 to 2012.
Emissions have soared in recent years, making Canada's task that much harder — especially since Kyoto's so-called compliance period starts next year and Ottawa has never enacted a complete plan.
Mr. Drummond says he accepts the thinking that the only way to fulfill Bill C-288 and meet Canada's Kyoto timetable is to slap a carbon tax of about $195 on each tonne of greenhouse gas released by companies and other emitters.
“I grudgingly accept that a massive carbon tax implemented almost immediately is the only viable option to reach the bill's goals,” Mr. Drummond writes in his letter.
When fossil fuels such as oil and coal are burned, they release carbon that becomes carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas. A carbon tax is basically a levy on greenhouse emissions that seeks to restrict the burning of fossil fuels.
Mr. Drummond says the magnitude of Canada's required greenhouse-gas reductions under Kyoto is almost unparalleled.
“The policy shock analyzed is massive: a one-third reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for each of the next five years,” Mr. Drummond writes.
“Other than as a side effect of the economic collapse of Russia, nothing close to such a result has occurred anywhere.”
His letter dismisses Bill C-288 as unworkable, saying, “I sincerely hope no serious consideration is being given to implementing the policy.”
He warns that such a hefty carbon tax, designed to drive down emissions, would substantially hurt the economy even if Ottawa funnelled the revenue collected from the levy back to Canadians via personal and corporate income-tax cuts.
“This shock would represent a huge loss to Canadian competitiveness. Exports would plunge and imports rise.”
His only substantial quibble with the Environment Canada study is that he's not sure the carbon tax would have a relatively constant impact in later years.
The TD economist previously worked in the federal Finance Department for 23 years. He offers policy advice to politicians of all stripes, when asked, noting that the Bloc Québécois has never requested his help, and he has not shied away from criticizing Tory policies under the Harper government.
Mr. Drummond says his comments should not be interpreted as anti-environmental or suggesting that economic concerns should trump environmental needs. “The environment will also be a loser if rash policies are implemented because the course will be abandoned long before the environmental objectives are achieved.”
19/04/07, Tenille Boboguore, Kyoto would 'manufacture a recession': Baird, (Back).
Environment Minister John Baird has delivered a drastic vision of economic breakdown if Canada were forced to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, a vision the Liberals say is not based on fact.
Speaking after appearing before the Senate environment committee – where he said the only way to meet Kyoto's carbon limits was to “manufacture a recession” – Mr. Baird said the government would soon bring forward a plan that can be accomplished.
“Rather than go to reckless extremes just to make up for lost time, we want a more realistic plan which we will introduce soon,” Mr. Baird said.
He had earlier said that 275,000 Canadians would lose their jobs, gasoline prices would jump 60 per cent and natural-gas prices would double if the government adopted Bill C-288.
“The cost to maintain a home or business would skyrocket,” Mr. Baird said.
But Liberal critics accused him of fear-mongering, saying the apocalyptic claims were not backed up by any figures.
Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said the government had ignored the economic benefits of complying with Bill C-288 and the Kyoto Protocol because “that story is too positive for Canadians to know.”
He said Mr. Baird was painting Kyoto as “a money-sucking socialist scheme,” accusing the Conservative government of being “full of climate change resistors.”
“This government is isolationist and defeatist in its strategy. Canadians deserve better,” Mr. McGuinty said.
In the committee, Liberal Colin Kenny challenged Mr. Baird to provide a step-by-step explanation of how he arrived at his dire figures.
Mr. Baird referred Mr. Kenny to a document that he provided to the committee, but committee chairman Liberal Tommy Banks said he could not find any arithmetic in the document that justified the figures.
A leaked letter by Toronto-Dominion Bank economist Don Drummond supports some of Mr. Baird's warning, suggesting that Kyoto could not be achieved without a massive carbon tax of $195 tonne.
But that letter did not contain any detailed analysis.
A study last fall by Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, said costs of combatting global warming are manageable and would be much less than the costs of taking no action.
Bill C-288 was put forward by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez and passed by the Commons.
The Environment Minister defended his stand on Thursday morning, saying it was “validated by some of Canada's leading economists.
“The cost [of complying with Bill C-288] is simply too high for us to consider,” he said.
He said the benefits of compliance would not arrive in the immediate future, so effectively had no place in the short-term projections.
“In the short term of the next eight months and the average of the four years ... we're not going to see the benefit for a long time to come,” he said. “The plan we've put forward is a full plan ... and it's been validated by some of Canada's leading economists.”
28/04/07, Globe, Al Gore says Tories' green plan a 'fraud', (Back).
Former U.S. vice-president blasts Conservative environmental platform as 'complete and total fraud designed to mislead the Canadian public.'
TORONTO — The Conservatives' new environmental platform is a "complete and total fraud" that is "designed to mislead the Canadian people," former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said Saturday.
The noted environmentalist was presenting his Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth in Toronto at a consumer environmental show, with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and environmentalist David Suzuki in attendance.
Mr. Gore praised Mr. Suzuki for confronting Environment Minister John Baird on Friday, saying he saw the two exchange words on TV.
When Mr. Baird told Mr. Suzuki the Conservatives were going further than any other government in Canadian history, Mr. Suzuki said it wasn't enough.
The Conservative government strategy focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. But the plan failed to spell out precisely what many of its regulations will look like.
"In my opinion, it is a complete and total fraud," Mr. Gore said. "It is designed to mislead the Canadian people."
Mr. Gore said said he was surprised to see that the Tory plan employs the concept of "intensity reduction," which he said is a poll-tested phrase developed in Houston by the so-called think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and some other large polluters.
Mr. Gore acknowledged he is not a Canadian citizen and said he has "no right to interfere in your decisions."
However, he said, the rest of the world looks to Canada for moral leadership and that's why this week's announcement was so "shocking."
Mr. Baird released a statement later in the day Saturday in which he refuted Mr. Gore's criticisms.
"The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member," Mr. Baird said in the statement.
Mr. Baird's statement also offered an invitation for Mr. Gore to discuss climate change and the Conservatives' environmental policies with him.
28/04/07, Editorial, The Kyoto quandary, (Back).
The opposition parties may detect short-term political advantage in denouncing the Conservative government's compromise plan for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. But it would be foolhardy for them to force an election over this complicated issue. Sure, many Canadians hoped that we could somehow, magically, with little personal sacrifice, meet our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to slash emissions. They are understandably disappointed with Environment Minister John Baird's cautious approach. But when those voters realize that any attempt to meet those targets at this late date could ruin the economy, they will turn on the parties -- and especially the Liberals -- that dangled the improbable dream.
As it stands, the far-from-perfect Tory plan could cost $7-billion to $8-billion during the most difficult years of its implementation, or 0.5 per cent of annual GDP. Canadians could pay more for consumer goods and utilities such as vehicles, appliances, natural gas and electricity. Even then, total reductions in industrial emissions will only commence in 2010. An absolute decline in all emissions of 20 per cent below 2006 levels will occur in 2020 -- a target that is well above and beyond Canada's pledge to reduce emissions to an average of 6 per cent below 1990 levels during the 2008-2012 period.
Still, it's a start -- which is more than you can say for the former Liberal government, which permitted emissions to steadily rise. The Tory program pins a lot of its hopes for deeper cuts on a technology fund that could eventually uncover ways to further reduce emissions. Meanwhile, nine years after Canada signed the Kyoto accord, all three opposition parties keep blithely espousing its targets.
That ship has sailed. It was always going to be difficult. Under Kyoto, energy-exporting nations are deemed to be responsible for 60 per cent of the emissions from energy exports -- even if that energy is consumed elsewhere. That provision automatically puts Canada at an enormous competitive disadvantage. If we tried to meet the Kyoto targets now, it would require a one-third reduction in emissions for each of the next five years. The shock would be brutal.
During an election campaign, voters would inevitably confront those hard facts. Their jobs, indeed their livelihoods, would be at risk. Their prosperity would decline. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has not yet established sufficient credibility to sell such a radical approach. In fact, once the public learns the truth, he could damage his party and his cause. Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe should be hesitant to face the voters after the setback suffered by his provincial colleagues in the recent Quebec election. And, as this week's Strategic Counsel poll for The Globe and Mail indicates, the Green Party has made substantial inroads into New Democratic Party support. There is little upside for any opposition party here.
No doubt the Conservatives have a lot of work to do. For months, the federal government has been talking with the provinces, struggling to establish a regulatory framework for industries. That requires careful negotiations to reduce bureaucratic hurdles. But the Conservatives' cautious start is far preferable to an election based on the opposition parties' reckless prescriptions.
28/04/07, Globe, Text of Baird's response to Gore, (Back).
With respect to the comments of former United States vice-president Al Gore, the Honourable John Baird, the Minister of the Environment, made the following statement:
"Former vice-president Al Gore deserves acknowledgement for the success of his film in highlighting the huge ecological challenge of climate change. It is regrettable, however, that the former vice-president has criticized Canada's recently released action plan to cut greenhouse gases and air pollution.
"It is difficult to accept criticism from someone who preaches about climate change, but who never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to a vote in the United States Senate, who never did as much as Canada is now doing to fight climate change during eight years in office, and who has campaigned exclusively for hundreds of Democratic candidates who have weaker plans to fight greenhouse gases than Canada's New Government.
"It is equally regrettable that the former U.S. vice-president decided to speak out without ever having been briefed on the contents of our plan. The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the Administration of which the former vice-president was a member.
"I am ready to meet with Mr. Gore at any time to discuss the climate change threat and our government's tough plan to reduce Canada's emissions."
27/04/07, John M. Broder & Marjorie Connelly, Public Remains Split on Response to Warming, (Back).
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds.
Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were needed.
Recent international reports have said with near certainty that human activities are the main cause of global warming since 1950. The poll found that 84 percent of Americans see human activity as at least contributing to warming.
The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal.
The presidential candidates have recognized the desire for swifter action on energy and the environment than the Bush administration has pursued and have offered plans with varying degrees of specificity.
Among the leading Democrats, John Edwards and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York have offered fairly detailed plans for national and international programs to reduce heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide and encouraging alternative energy sources.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has been critical of the administration’s responses and has advocated building nuclear plants to provide electricity.
The issue arises frequently in public forums, and it is likely that along with the Iraq war and health care, it will be among the chief topics in the 2008 campaign.
When it comes to specific steps to foster conservation or produce more energy, the public is deeply torn, the poll found. Respondents said they would support higher gasoline prices to reduce dependence on foreign oil but would oppose higher prices to combat global warming.
By large margins, respondents opposed an increase in pump prices of $2 a gallon, or even $1, to deal with environmental and energy-supply concerns. Three-quarters said they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources like solar or wind energy.
The negative view of new gasoline taxes may reflect the wide expectation that pump prices will continue to increase regardless of government action. More than 80 percent foresee higher prices in coming months, with many citing the Iraq war as a primary cause. Most respondents said they did not expect that any withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would cause prices to fall.
Nearly half of those polled also said they did not believe that their fellow Americans would be willing to change driving habits to save gasoline or reduce the production of heat-trapping gases, which most scientists say contribute to the warming.
Respondents expressed little confidence in President Bush’s handling of environmental or energy issues, and a majority of those polled, including many Republicans, said Democrats were more likely than Republicans to protect the environment and foster energy independence.
One-third approved Mr. Bush’s handling of the environment and 27 percent approved his approach to energy questions. Democrats have criticized Mr. Bush’s policies on energy and the environment almost from the day he took office. Those policies have also cost him some Republican support, the poll showed.
“I think the Republicans have slashed the funds for cleanup of the environment, and if it comes down to whether or not it will cost big business, forget about the cleanup,” said Ron Gellerman, 65, a respondent from Maple Grove, Minn., who said he was a Republican.
“The Democrats are more willing to spend dollars on pure research,” Mr. Gellerman added in a follow-up interview after the poll was completed. “They’re open to alternative sources of energy, like wind. We could save more energy by increasing the efficiency of our electrical system and our automobiles. And the Democrats would be more willing to look at that sort of thing because they’re not so beholden to Big Oil.”
Many governors, members of Congress and presidential hopefuls from both parties have been more outspoken than Mr. Bush on the need to take immediate steps to combat global warming and reduce oil imports.
Private citizens tend to agree with them, the poll found, but they are also somewhat bewildered about the issues. Asked whether discussions of energy and the environment by political leaders were helpful or confusing, nearly three-quarters said the details were confusing.
Asked how they would respond to a presidential candidate who said all Americans would have to pay more for fuel or use less of it to protect the environment, one-third said they would be more likely to vote for that person and 15 percent said they would be less likely. Almost half said it would make no difference.
Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with ethanol, which is now made largely from corn, is a good idea, the survey found.
They also are nearly evenly split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in their community, they said no, 59 percent to 36 percent.
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday to Tuesday with 1,052 adults. The margin-of-sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Nearly four of five of those polled said they believed that the condition of the air, water, land and wildlife around the world was fair or poor. One percent rated global environmental quality as excellent, and 19 percent called it good. But 56 percent said the environmental condition in their communities was excellent or good.
Despite general optimism about their children’s future found in other surveys, respondents in this poll said by 57 percent to 11 percent that the condition of the environment would be worse for the next generation.
Fifty-two percent said that generally speaking they would support protecting the environment over stimulating the economy. Thirty-six percent chose the economy. But respondents also said, 62 percent to 21 percent, that developing new energy sources was more important than protecting the environment.
Yet they also expressed the belief that the government should encourage conservation over increasing development of additional energy sources. By a substantial margin, Americans continue to oppose drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as they have for the last six years.
Although respondents split almost evenly on whether Washington can effectively address global warming, they almost unanimously (92 percent to 6 percent) supported requiring automobile manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient cars.
There is more opposition to using fossil fuels among Democrats than Republicans. Fifty-four percent of Democrats consider using coal to generate electricity to be a bad idea, compared with 39 percent of Republicans. Sixty-one percent of Republicans favor using natural gas to generate power, while Democrats divided, with 42 percent saying it is a good idea and 45 percent opposing it.
Americans almost universally support developing alternative energy sources like wind or solar power and biofuels, with 87 percent expressing approval. But fewer than 10 percent of those polled said they used any alternative energy source at home.
A big majority, 75 percent, said recent weather had been stranger than usual, an increase of almost 10 percentage points from 1997. Of those who said the weather had turned weird, 43 percent attributed it to global warming and 15 percent to pollution or other environmental damage. Four percent cited the coming end of the world or biblical prophecy, and 2 percent blamed space junk.
Ten years ago, 5 percent of respondents blamed global warming for changes in the weather.
(Back)
19/04/07, Tenille Boboguore, Kyoto would 'manufacture a recession': Baird, Source.
28/04/07, Globe, Al Gore says Tories' green plan a 'fraud', Source.
28/04/07, Editorial, The Kyoto quandary, Source.
28/04/07, Globe, Text of Baird's response to Gore, Source.
27/04/07, John M. Broder & Marjorie Connelly, Public Remains Split on Response to Warming, Source.
19/04/07, Steven Chase, Ottawa rolls out 'validators' to bolster anti-Kyoto stand, (Back).
OTTAWA — The Harper government has secured a high-profile endorsement of its position that Canada's economy would be crippled if it was forced to meet the Kyoto accord's timetable for cutting greenhouse gases.
On Thursday, federal Environment Minister John Baird will unveil a new study by his department that suggests complying with the Kyoto Protocol would hit Canada hard, a report that is certain to draw swift criticism from environmentalists.
The Conservatives are trying to add credence to the report, however, by also releasing an opinion from Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond that effectively backs their findings.
“I believe the economic cost would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s, and indeed that is the result your department's analysis shows,” Mr. Drummond writes in a letter to Mr. Baird obtained by The Globe and Mail.
The Tories are expected to unveil additional opinions by experts, whom they call “validators,” as they attempt to refute Bill C-288, a bill opposition parties pushed through the Commons in February.
It attempts to force the Harper government to meet Canada's targets under the Kyoto accord for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
Mr. Drummond's letter appears to be a political boon for the Tories, and a blow for the Liberals, as parties gird themselves for the possibility of an election campaign fought on hot-button issues such as Kyoto.
It will be difficult for the Liberals to attack Mr. Drummond, a senior Canadian economist whom political parties, including Mr. Dion's, have consulted over the years. He wasn't paid for this latest opinion, which the Tories solicited from him.
Thursday's announcement also lays the groundwork for the Tories' own plan to fight climate change: one outside the Kyoto accord timetable.
Kyoto's obligations would require massive action by Ottawa because under the accord, Canada is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions an average of 6 per cent below 1990 levels in each year, 2008 to 2012.
Emissions have soared in recent years, making Canada's task that much harder — especially since Kyoto's so-called compliance period starts next year and Ottawa has never enacted a complete plan.
Mr. Drummond says he accepts the thinking that the only way to fulfill Bill C-288 and meet Canada's Kyoto timetable is to slap a carbon tax of about $195 on each tonne of greenhouse gas released by companies and other emitters.
“I grudgingly accept that a massive carbon tax implemented almost immediately is the only viable option to reach the bill's goals,” Mr. Drummond writes in his letter.
When fossil fuels such as oil and coal are burned, they release carbon that becomes carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas. A carbon tax is basically a levy on greenhouse emissions that seeks to restrict the burning of fossil fuels.
Mr. Drummond says the magnitude of Canada's required greenhouse-gas reductions under Kyoto is almost unparalleled.
“The policy shock analyzed is massive: a one-third reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for each of the next five years,” Mr. Drummond writes.
“Other than as a side effect of the economic collapse of Russia, nothing close to such a result has occurred anywhere.”
His letter dismisses Bill C-288 as unworkable, saying, “I sincerely hope no serious consideration is being given to implementing the policy.”
He warns that such a hefty carbon tax, designed to drive down emissions, would substantially hurt the economy even if Ottawa funnelled the revenue collected from the levy back to Canadians via personal and corporate income-tax cuts.
“This shock would represent a huge loss to Canadian competitiveness. Exports would plunge and imports rise.”
His only substantial quibble with the Environment Canada study is that he's not sure the carbon tax would have a relatively constant impact in later years.
The TD economist previously worked in the federal Finance Department for 23 years. He offers policy advice to politicians of all stripes, when asked, noting that the Bloc Québécois has never requested his help, and he has not shied away from criticizing Tory policies under the Harper government.
Mr. Drummond says his comments should not be interpreted as anti-environmental or suggesting that economic concerns should trump environmental needs. “The environment will also be a loser if rash policies are implemented because the course will be abandoned long before the environmental objectives are achieved.”
19/04/07, Tenille Boboguore, Kyoto would 'manufacture a recession': Baird, (Back).
Environment Minister John Baird has delivered a drastic vision of economic breakdown if Canada were forced to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, a vision the Liberals say is not based on fact.
Speaking after appearing before the Senate environment committee – where he said the only way to meet Kyoto's carbon limits was to “manufacture a recession” – Mr. Baird said the government would soon bring forward a plan that can be accomplished.
“Rather than go to reckless extremes just to make up for lost time, we want a more realistic plan which we will introduce soon,” Mr. Baird said.
He had earlier said that 275,000 Canadians would lose their jobs, gasoline prices would jump 60 per cent and natural-gas prices would double if the government adopted Bill C-288.
“The cost to maintain a home or business would skyrocket,” Mr. Baird said.
But Liberal critics accused him of fear-mongering, saying the apocalyptic claims were not backed up by any figures.
Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said the government had ignored the economic benefits of complying with Bill C-288 and the Kyoto Protocol because “that story is too positive for Canadians to know.”
He said Mr. Baird was painting Kyoto as “a money-sucking socialist scheme,” accusing the Conservative government of being “full of climate change resistors.”
“This government is isolationist and defeatist in its strategy. Canadians deserve better,” Mr. McGuinty said.
In the committee, Liberal Colin Kenny challenged Mr. Baird to provide a step-by-step explanation of how he arrived at his dire figures.
Mr. Baird referred Mr. Kenny to a document that he provided to the committee, but committee chairman Liberal Tommy Banks said he could not find any arithmetic in the document that justified the figures.
A leaked letter by Toronto-Dominion Bank economist Don Drummond supports some of Mr. Baird's warning, suggesting that Kyoto could not be achieved without a massive carbon tax of $195 tonne.
But that letter did not contain any detailed analysis.
A study last fall by Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, said costs of combatting global warming are manageable and would be much less than the costs of taking no action.
Bill C-288 was put forward by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez and passed by the Commons.
The Environment Minister defended his stand on Thursday morning, saying it was “validated by some of Canada's leading economists.
“The cost [of complying with Bill C-288] is simply too high for us to consider,” he said.
He said the benefits of compliance would not arrive in the immediate future, so effectively had no place in the short-term projections.
“In the short term of the next eight months and the average of the four years ... we're not going to see the benefit for a long time to come,” he said. “The plan we've put forward is a full plan ... and it's been validated by some of Canada's leading economists.”
28/04/07, Globe, Al Gore says Tories' green plan a 'fraud', (Back).
Former U.S. vice-president blasts Conservative environmental platform as 'complete and total fraud designed to mislead the Canadian public.'
TORONTO — The Conservatives' new environmental platform is a "complete and total fraud" that is "designed to mislead the Canadian people," former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said Saturday.
The noted environmentalist was presenting his Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth in Toronto at a consumer environmental show, with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and environmentalist David Suzuki in attendance.
Mr. Gore praised Mr. Suzuki for confronting Environment Minister John Baird on Friday, saying he saw the two exchange words on TV.
When Mr. Baird told Mr. Suzuki the Conservatives were going further than any other government in Canadian history, Mr. Suzuki said it wasn't enough.
The Conservative government strategy focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. But the plan failed to spell out precisely what many of its regulations will look like.
"In my opinion, it is a complete and total fraud," Mr. Gore said. "It is designed to mislead the Canadian people."
Mr. Gore said said he was surprised to see that the Tory plan employs the concept of "intensity reduction," which he said is a poll-tested phrase developed in Houston by the so-called think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and some other large polluters.
Mr. Gore acknowledged he is not a Canadian citizen and said he has "no right to interfere in your decisions."
However, he said, the rest of the world looks to Canada for moral leadership and that's why this week's announcement was so "shocking."
Mr. Baird released a statement later in the day Saturday in which he refuted Mr. Gore's criticisms.
"The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member," Mr. Baird said in the statement.
Mr. Baird's statement also offered an invitation for Mr. Gore to discuss climate change and the Conservatives' environmental policies with him.
28/04/07, Editorial, The Kyoto quandary, (Back).
The opposition parties may detect short-term political advantage in denouncing the Conservative government's compromise plan for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. But it would be foolhardy for them to force an election over this complicated issue. Sure, many Canadians hoped that we could somehow, magically, with little personal sacrifice, meet our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to slash emissions. They are understandably disappointed with Environment Minister John Baird's cautious approach. But when those voters realize that any attempt to meet those targets at this late date could ruin the economy, they will turn on the parties -- and especially the Liberals -- that dangled the improbable dream.
As it stands, the far-from-perfect Tory plan could cost $7-billion to $8-billion during the most difficult years of its implementation, or 0.5 per cent of annual GDP. Canadians could pay more for consumer goods and utilities such as vehicles, appliances, natural gas and electricity. Even then, total reductions in industrial emissions will only commence in 2010. An absolute decline in all emissions of 20 per cent below 2006 levels will occur in 2020 -- a target that is well above and beyond Canada's pledge to reduce emissions to an average of 6 per cent below 1990 levels during the 2008-2012 period.
Still, it's a start -- which is more than you can say for the former Liberal government, which permitted emissions to steadily rise. The Tory program pins a lot of its hopes for deeper cuts on a technology fund that could eventually uncover ways to further reduce emissions. Meanwhile, nine years after Canada signed the Kyoto accord, all three opposition parties keep blithely espousing its targets.
That ship has sailed. It was always going to be difficult. Under Kyoto, energy-exporting nations are deemed to be responsible for 60 per cent of the emissions from energy exports -- even if that energy is consumed elsewhere. That provision automatically puts Canada at an enormous competitive disadvantage. If we tried to meet the Kyoto targets now, it would require a one-third reduction in emissions for each of the next five years. The shock would be brutal.
During an election campaign, voters would inevitably confront those hard facts. Their jobs, indeed their livelihoods, would be at risk. Their prosperity would decline. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has not yet established sufficient credibility to sell such a radical approach. In fact, once the public learns the truth, he could damage his party and his cause. Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe should be hesitant to face the voters after the setback suffered by his provincial colleagues in the recent Quebec election. And, as this week's Strategic Counsel poll for The Globe and Mail indicates, the Green Party has made substantial inroads into New Democratic Party support. There is little upside for any opposition party here.
No doubt the Conservatives have a lot of work to do. For months, the federal government has been talking with the provinces, struggling to establish a regulatory framework for industries. That requires careful negotiations to reduce bureaucratic hurdles. But the Conservatives' cautious start is far preferable to an election based on the opposition parties' reckless prescriptions.
28/04/07, Globe, Text of Baird's response to Gore, (Back).
With respect to the comments of former United States vice-president Al Gore, the Honourable John Baird, the Minister of the Environment, made the following statement:
"Former vice-president Al Gore deserves acknowledgement for the success of his film in highlighting the huge ecological challenge of climate change. It is regrettable, however, that the former vice-president has criticized Canada's recently released action plan to cut greenhouse gases and air pollution.
"It is difficult to accept criticism from someone who preaches about climate change, but who never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to a vote in the United States Senate, who never did as much as Canada is now doing to fight climate change during eight years in office, and who has campaigned exclusively for hundreds of Democratic candidates who have weaker plans to fight greenhouse gases than Canada's New Government.
"It is equally regrettable that the former U.S. vice-president decided to speak out without ever having been briefed on the contents of our plan. The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the Administration of which the former vice-president was a member.
"I am ready to meet with Mr. Gore at any time to discuss the climate change threat and our government's tough plan to reduce Canada's emissions."
27/04/07, John M. Broder & Marjorie Connelly, Public Remains Split on Response to Warming, (Back).
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds.
Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were needed.
Recent international reports have said with near certainty that human activities are the main cause of global warming since 1950. The poll found that 84 percent of Americans see human activity as at least contributing to warming.
The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal.
The presidential candidates have recognized the desire for swifter action on energy and the environment than the Bush administration has pursued and have offered plans with varying degrees of specificity.
Among the leading Democrats, John Edwards and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York have offered fairly detailed plans for national and international programs to reduce heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide and encouraging alternative energy sources.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has been critical of the administration’s responses and has advocated building nuclear plants to provide electricity.
The issue arises frequently in public forums, and it is likely that along with the Iraq war and health care, it will be among the chief topics in the 2008 campaign.
When it comes to specific steps to foster conservation or produce more energy, the public is deeply torn, the poll found. Respondents said they would support higher gasoline prices to reduce dependence on foreign oil but would oppose higher prices to combat global warming.
By large margins, respondents opposed an increase in pump prices of $2 a gallon, or even $1, to deal with environmental and energy-supply concerns. Three-quarters said they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources like solar or wind energy.
The negative view of new gasoline taxes may reflect the wide expectation that pump prices will continue to increase regardless of government action. More than 80 percent foresee higher prices in coming months, with many citing the Iraq war as a primary cause. Most respondents said they did not expect that any withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would cause prices to fall.
Nearly half of those polled also said they did not believe that their fellow Americans would be willing to change driving habits to save gasoline or reduce the production of heat-trapping gases, which most scientists say contribute to the warming.
Respondents expressed little confidence in President Bush’s handling of environmental or energy issues, and a majority of those polled, including many Republicans, said Democrats were more likely than Republicans to protect the environment and foster energy independence.
One-third approved Mr. Bush’s handling of the environment and 27 percent approved his approach to energy questions. Democrats have criticized Mr. Bush’s policies on energy and the environment almost from the day he took office. Those policies have also cost him some Republican support, the poll showed.
“I think the Republicans have slashed the funds for cleanup of the environment, and if it comes down to whether or not it will cost big business, forget about the cleanup,” said Ron Gellerman, 65, a respondent from Maple Grove, Minn., who said he was a Republican.
“The Democrats are more willing to spend dollars on pure research,” Mr. Gellerman added in a follow-up interview after the poll was completed. “They’re open to alternative sources of energy, like wind. We could save more energy by increasing the efficiency of our electrical system and our automobiles. And the Democrats would be more willing to look at that sort of thing because they’re not so beholden to Big Oil.”
Many governors, members of Congress and presidential hopefuls from both parties have been more outspoken than Mr. Bush on the need to take immediate steps to combat global warming and reduce oil imports.
Private citizens tend to agree with them, the poll found, but they are also somewhat bewildered about the issues. Asked whether discussions of energy and the environment by political leaders were helpful or confusing, nearly three-quarters said the details were confusing.
Asked how they would respond to a presidential candidate who said all Americans would have to pay more for fuel or use less of it to protect the environment, one-third said they would be more likely to vote for that person and 15 percent said they would be less likely. Almost half said it would make no difference.
Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with ethanol, which is now made largely from corn, is a good idea, the survey found.
They also are nearly evenly split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in their community, they said no, 59 percent to 36 percent.
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday to Tuesday with 1,052 adults. The margin-of-sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Nearly four of five of those polled said they believed that the condition of the air, water, land and wildlife around the world was fair or poor. One percent rated global environmental quality as excellent, and 19 percent called it good. But 56 percent said the environmental condition in their communities was excellent or good.
Despite general optimism about their children’s future found in other surveys, respondents in this poll said by 57 percent to 11 percent that the condition of the environment would be worse for the next generation.
Fifty-two percent said that generally speaking they would support protecting the environment over stimulating the economy. Thirty-six percent chose the economy. But respondents also said, 62 percent to 21 percent, that developing new energy sources was more important than protecting the environment.
Yet they also expressed the belief that the government should encourage conservation over increasing development of additional energy sources. By a substantial margin, Americans continue to oppose drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as they have for the last six years.
Although respondents split almost evenly on whether Washington can effectively address global warming, they almost unanimously (92 percent to 6 percent) supported requiring automobile manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient cars.
There is more opposition to using fossil fuels among Democrats than Republicans. Fifty-four percent of Democrats consider using coal to generate electricity to be a bad idea, compared with 39 percent of Republicans. Sixty-one percent of Republicans favor using natural gas to generate power, while Democrats divided, with 42 percent saying it is a good idea and 45 percent opposing it.
Americans almost universally support developing alternative energy sources like wind or solar power and biofuels, with 87 percent expressing approval. But fewer than 10 percent of those polled said they used any alternative energy source at home.
A big majority, 75 percent, said recent weather had been stranger than usual, an increase of almost 10 percentage points from 1997. Of those who said the weather had turned weird, 43 percent attributed it to global warming and 15 percent to pollution or other environmental damage. Four percent cited the coming end of the world or biblical prophecy, and 2 percent blamed space junk.
Ten years ago, 5 percent of respondents blamed global warming for changes in the weather.
(Back)