SPP Dion Update: Stephane Dion doesn't care about the environment

I wish I had made the following up - From "The Canadian"

Stéphane Dion continues to ignore New American Union project to take over Canada.

The Stéphane Dion led Liberal Party of Canada has totally abdicated supporting vital cross-Canada public discussions on the efforts of the Stephen Harper government to work with the U.S. Bush administration's effort to consolidate the continentalist agenda to create a "New American Union" (NAU). The NAU is a plan to replace democratically elected governments in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a fascistic "capitalistocracy" run by a greed-driven North American political-military-industrial complex. [...]

Yeah, I thought so.

While Mr. Dion markets his leadership as pro-Canada and pro-environmentalistic [...] , the "New American Union" agenda [leads] to the accelerated destruction of Canada's environment.

Wasn't environment "THE" issue for Stephane Dion?
It sounds like Dion is becoming more of a hypocrite every day.

To be more specific, Liberal leader Stephane Dion said he "knew nothing about the SSP plan (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) to massively expand production in the Alberta oilsands to meet the demand in the U.S.". See no evil, hear no evil.

Neo-Liberalist Stephane Dion rather sticks his head in the (oil-)sand than to fight back against SPP and it's disastrous environmental consequences. Hypocrisy indeed.


- The Canadian: Stephane Dion ignores SPP's deep integration
- Wikipedia: North American Union
- Wikipedia: Neo-Liberalism
- Women at Mile 0: "Dion needs to come forward"

Chinese CO2 output exceeded US emissions in 2006

Radio Netherlands
The Netherlands' Environmental Assessment Bureau, MNP, says that China's carbon dioxide emissions exceeded those of the United States last year. It is the first time that China's emissions have surpassed those of the US. According to MNP figures, Chinese emissions rose by nine percent in 2006. US emissions rose by 1.4 percent over the same period. The Dutch research agency says the European Union managed to keep its 2006 emissions more or less level with 2005.

- Radio Netherlands
- Guardian: China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter

BC Ferries needs a Green Plan

Everybody is going green these days, except BC Ferries. What's wrong with them? Don't they see the opportunities here?

I'll help them with a few money-making examples for a greener BC Ferries :

1. Lower the walk-on fee. Lower? Yes, lower. Cars don't eat food, they don't buy magazines, and don't play in the Arcade hall. People do. Focus on transporting people, not metal. People are still considered green (when in fact most of them aren't), but cars are not. When people have to spend less on a ticket, they're also more likely to spend a few more bucks during the ride.

2. Lobby for improvement of BC Transit. I find it still hard to believe that in the year 2007 there still isn't a BC Transit Express service from downtown Victoria to downtown Vancouver. What's taking so long? Many people bemoan the high rates for taking your car onto these ferries, still the only comfortable way to get to Vancouver (from Victoria). A return ticket for one car and two passengers is close to $120 dollars. Lobby to come up with a walk-on return pass under $40 per person. This would make walk-on travel convenient and affordable, resulting in more travellers. Lobbying doesn't cost money, only effort. Go!

When the above is implemented, these changes can lead to the next move:

3. Introduce smaller, walk-on-passenger-only ferries. These ferries should be able to operate for a lot less money, and could improve the service. Since they can be a lot smaller, they probably can go a bit faster too.

BC Ferries, Go Green!

CBC website gets the facts wrong on the "emission" plan.

The CBC explains the latest Conservative environment scheme as follows (from the CBC website)

Companies [...] will be required to cut back their greenhouse gas emissions by 18 per cent by 2010. After that, they have to reduce amounts by two per cent a year.

True or false?

False

Fact: The current so-called "emission" plan requires polluters to cut back on "carbon intensity", not on "greenhouse gas emissions".

---------------------------------

Update - Other media repeating the deceiving message:
Calgary Herald

So the Conservatives threw out a target -- [...] 18 per cent emissions cut [...] -- and called it their best compromise.

US intensity targets led to INCREASE of emissions by 14%

Read "Carbon Emissions Climbing" by Earth Policy Institute:

In the United States, the Bush administration's "Clear Skies" proposal requires a decline in carbon emissions per unit of economic output (known as carbon intensity), but not overall carbon emissions. [...] The U.S. economy has consistently improved its carbon intensity, yet emissions have continued to increase. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the carbon intensity of the U.S. economy was cut by 17 percent between 1990 and 2000, yet total emissions increased during that time by 14 percent due to a 39-percent increase in economic activity.

Reductions in carbon intensity do not mean a reduction in actual carbon emissions.

Repeat after me:

Reductions in carbon intensity do not mean a reduction in actual carbon emissions.

That's right. It's the "made in the US" fraud version of Kyoto. Don't fall for it.

See also: Rusty Idols

OIL INDUSTRY did nothing for over a decade; so why reward THEM with INTENSITY TARGETS?

Since Canada's neo-cons love to come up with analogies, here's mine for intensity targets:

You own an old chevy, and you drive daily from Victoria (BC) to Sidney (BC) and back, which is about 60 kilometers. Now, you're asked to limit your reductions, but, you actually have ideas to travel around the world.

The Conservatives make both possible!

Just buy a small Toyota that will reduce at least 6% per kilometre and you can drive as far as you like, pollute as much as you like.

Yes, that's what intensity targets are about; make small improvements to your dirty industry, then you can pollute as much as you like. Who cares if the overall pollution rises?

Oil industry is like a dirty old Chevy
No wonder Canada's dirtiest industry, the oil industry, likes the new plan. They're the old chevy that should have been replaced over a decade ago, but now they can get away with polluting even more!

It's of course a lot easier for the Canada's neo-cons to blame Liberals for inaction (not enforcing emission regulations) than punishing the REAL source of pollution due to inaction; Canada's dirtiest industry, the oil industry.

footnote: It's interesting to see that both parties (Libs and Cons) are so much alike, even on environment; neither one is serious about Kyoto once in power.

(video) Liberals on Environment: Lots of Tricks, No Action

Watch how David McQuinty uses a bag full of tricks to dodge the following question:

Peter van Dusen:
Is it fair to hold the Conservative government to a set of targets that the previous Liberal government didn't try to reach for ten years?

Enjoy!

Conservatives and Big Oil - dealings behind closed doors

Do you want to know the connections between the Conservatives and Big Oil? Too bad; meetings are behind closed doors.

A handful of industry chief executives met behind closed doors with Environment Minister John Baird, Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Jim Prentice and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn to discuss the Conservative government’s new green agenda.

“As [Mr. Baird] reiterated, the Prime Minister wants to do this in a way that doesn’t harm the economy, and that recognizes that capital stock and technology take some time to bring into place,” said Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

The two-hour meeting was part of the government’s consultations ahead of firming up policy to deal with Canada’s growing greenhouse gas emissions. The three ministers held a series of private meetings in Calgary, where there’s rising anxiety about how aggressive the government will get to boost its environmental credentials at the expense of oilpatch growth plans, particularly in the oilsands.

But why behind closed doors? What's there to hide?

Mr. Baird described the meeting as “a good exchange of ideas. We learned more about some of the challenges, some of the opportunities.”

Yeah, it's better not to confuse the people with "exchanges of good ideas". Transparency, Conservative style.

Read the full article: Royal Dutch Shell PLC

Also at the meeting: Tim Hearn, CEO of Imperial Oil Ltd.; Clive Mather, CEO of Shell Canada Ltd.; Randy Eresman, CEO of En Cana Corp.; Hal Kvisley, CEO of Trans Canada Corp.; Steve Snyder, CEO of Trans Alta Corp.

Minister John Baird on YouTube: he doesn't seem to know the essential basics about the environment portfolio

Ask people on the street who John Baird is, and probably, many still won't know. But things could be worse, and when it comes to the current Conservatives, they almost always are.

Ask John Baird what the difference is between carbon tax and carbon trading, and he won't have the answer.
(he could just look here and here)

Ask John Baird which countries have a carbon tax today, and he won't have the answer.
(he could just look here)

Ask John Baird how much his department has spend the past year, and he won't know.

Meet John Baird, the "all new" Conservative Minister of Environment for the New (so-called) Government. And be amazed:



John Baird on YouTube