I haven't had the time, really its the patience, yet to pour over what I think is a purposely poorly presented package on the conservative government of Canada's 2nd try at producing a plan for containing the increase in Canadian made greenhouse gas emissions. The material, as far as I can gather, is here. A very very quick glance at some of the package tells me that the conservatives are, again, stumbling and unwilling to take a leadership role. They seem to have stuck with the emissions intensity targets which, because I've just re-charged my bullshit detector, seems, frankly, to be a ruse.
Remember the Bush administration introduced voluntary emission intensity reduction goals back in 2002. The Bush goal was to reduce emission intensity per GDP by 18% over the 10 year period ending in 2012 [that's an average of about 1.7% reduction in GHG intensity per GDP annually for 10 years]. Problem is that even if the intensity goal is met US total GHG emissions are expected to have increased by 12% over the 10 year period.
The Canadian emission goals are to be measured, I think, differently - as a percentage of output? I have to spend more time trying to actually figure out what the precise measure maybe.
But, for now, and starting with Minister Baird's attack on the economic consequences of his government's Clean Air Bill, which had been significantly revamped by all three opposition parties before being passed in the House and sent to the Canadian Senate, a very serious matter has turned into the usual political snafu. The whole matter of GHG emissions and global warming are for my stupid country just another of the usual "mugs-games" played by politicians and orchestrated by government officials serving their political masters.
"The sky will fall if we take any real action. [stage left: high paid civil servants rustle papers].
"We have asked a number of private sector and academic useful idiots economists to verify our heavily constrained assumptions and they all agree the sky will fall." [stage left: high paid civil servants snicker amongst themselves].
"This new government is not tackling global warming climate change because the sky will fall with a real plan of action. [stage left: muffled laughter and loud "high-fives" from high paid civil servants].
Another example of the politicalisation - mugs-games - is Baird's response to Al Gore's comments over the weekend. Gore said the Baird's plan was a "fraud". I guess the one thing that seems sure is that Baird and his handlers must be nervous of this new package because they have shot back quickly in what seems to be the typical conservative, or should we say reform party, style which is either a direct or implied ad hominem attack. I admit I'm pretty fed-up with the Harper, Baird, O'Connor, MacKay etc. etc. use of this sophomoric fallacy.
Here's the guts of Baird's nervous response:
“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."
Likely someone needs to tell the boys & girls at Environment Canada or Baird's bunker that a Vice President in the US doesn't submit any treaties for Senate approval, I think, there maybe someone above a VP but they should check, eh? In most normal US administrations, discounting the abnormal Bush 43 reign, a President may actually set the executive's policy course even in the face of some obvious disagreement. (US Senate Roll Call Vote 105th Congress 1st session)
SUMMARY AS OF:
6/12/1997--Introduced.
Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.
Calls for any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification to be accompanied by: (1) a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement it; and (2) an analysis of the detailed financial costs which would be incurred by, and other impacts on, the U.S. economy.
So attack Gore because he championed then and now controlling GHG emissions and blame him for, what was it again?
Baird, Baird, Baird your intensity emissions are showing. Please a little, even a really small amount of leadership and less hot air. Please, again.
Technorati Tags: Global Warming, Hot Air, Pinheads, Politicians