From today's National Post:
OTTAWA - A Liberal-sponsored bill that would legally require the Conservative government to abide by the Kyoto protocol's short-term targets will be debated for the final time in the House of Commons today, before going to a vote next week when it is all but guaranteed to pass.
Constitutional experts say the implications of passing the bill could see Prime Minister Stephen Harper forced to choose between implementing measures to meet Kyoto targets he has called unrealistic or calling a general election.
Assuming the The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (Bill-C288) passes, Harper has 60 days to figure out what to do and, of course, one of his options will be to call an election right around budget time (March/April). In fact, it is rumoured to be his preferred choice.
Today's polls aside, this seems fool-hardy to me. But in any case, another reason to book-mark The Western Penticton News, which publishes Stockwell's weekly column. This guy's better than Garth for Tory leaks.
h/t to anon 9:02 pm for calling this one correctly.
Update: And here's the first in a series of predictable responses by Blogging Tories! "Oh how irresponsible! Harper needs a majority!" However, she's right in that the following is not a particularly cutting response to Tory complaints:
[Liberal MP Pablo] Rodriguez said he is not suggesting how the Conservatives should meet the Kyoto targets. "They are in power. They wanted to run the country, so they have to take the responsibility," he said.
10 comments:
Just so we know, how much is meeting Kyoto going to cost, and which regions, and which industries? You know, so we can make an informed decision.
How would we possibly learn that unless the Tories put forward some kind of plan?
How would we possibly learn that unless the Tories put forward some kind of plan?
Isn't that somewhat of a circular argument?
The point is that Kyoto agreement is the dubious legacy of the previous government. It is the opposition that is pressing that it be followed. Why should the Tories have to put forward a plan to honour an agreement that they fundamentally disagree with?
Their own plan appears to be leaning towards carbon-trading on a national rather than international scale, which makes a lot more sense for Canada. Let's keep the money here.
Thanks for the link, BTW, and always interesting to see the other POV.
Joanne,
Any plan to start cutting emissions is in accordance with Kyoto. It says nothing about how you go about doing it. So really, to be fundamentally in disagreement with Kyoto means to have no intention of cutting emissions period (which is what will happen with a Harper majority).
Also, if the Tories think carbon trading internationally makes no sense, then I can't see how they would think it makes sense nationally. The money always goes from carbon emitters to those who manage to cut emissions. That means money from Alberta heads to (for example) Quebec. I wrote about it here:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/02/cibc-goverments-are-acting-and-soon
Perhaps Stephen Harper is playing possum, and pretending to be in a bit of disarray, all the while knowing from non-published polls that the Cons are start to sneak ahead of the Libs regionally and nationally. And since few voters (or pundits) pay attention to the Green and NDP numbers, that will result in significant vote-splitting in some regions - bad for the Libs. So it will look like the Libs or Libs/NDP/Bloq force an election over [pick your reason], but PMSH will snicker all the way to the polling booth.
Choosing Baird and getting even more intransigent on "climate change" (quotes intended) wasn't a dumb mistake, it was a Machiavellian plot to further divide and confuse centre-left voters.
We saw that in BC for 50 years with the Social Credit Party - every time there was an election, they yelled "Beware the Godless socialists" and managed to get re-elected thanks to the centre/left vote split. They never had more than about 40% of the popular vote, but always had huge majorities in the B.C. Legislature due to the inequitable drawing of electoral maps.
Just another conspiracy theory :)
"the bill, if passed, would legally bind the government to meet its Kyoto obligations."
From the Post. As for carbon trading, I don't hold myself to be an expert, but from everything I've read, Kyoto's goals are impossible to attain and Dion himself has admitted that.
Oh, so it IS about wealth re-distribution!
Whooee! Kyoto's goals ain't impossible. Meetin' Kyoto's emission targets after the Grits dithered an' the Cons rejected science is impossible.
Kyoto's goals are t' reduce GHG's.
We can reduce GHG's but it requires more than talk an' it requires that we accept science.
The Kyoto Protocol has a financial mechanism - carbon tradin' -- to make it possible to meet obligations of the treaty though a combination of emmissions reductions an' carbon credits (penalties, fines, call 'em what you want.)
Think about it in terms of traffic tickets. If yer a safe driver an' meet the target of everybuddy obeyin' speedin' an' traffic laws, yer not gonna pay a penalty. If yer a speeder who goes through stop signs, you ain't helpin' us meet the target of 100% traffick law compliance an' yer gonna pay a fine an' yer insurance premiums is gonna go up. When you got yer license an' drove on the publick highway, you entered into a contract with the state whereby you agreed to obey the traffick laws.
Canada signed a contract with the other Kyoto signatories. A sizable majority o' Canajuns want us t' comply with Kyoto. Right now, that means we gotta do our damnedest t' reduce GHG's so's we don't hafta pay out so much in fines. Kyoto requires that the money we pay be used to reward the ones who are complyin'. It also requires that the recipients o' the carbon credits use that money t' further reduce the GHG's that affect the entire world population. It ain't like we don't benefit, at all. If we wanna be on the receivin' end, alls we gotta do is reduce emissions.
Harper's been steadfast in sayin' we gotta meet our commitment t' NATO an' the UN in Afstan. He's right. If we commit, we need t' perform. We committed t' Kyoto jest like we committed t' NATO an' we gotta duty t' honour our commitment. If we don't, Canada loses credibility on the world stage an' Harper'll have a tuffer time with that there "Canada's back" slogan.
JimBobby
Tories did put forth a plan, the Clean Air Act, being beefed up in committee right now.
The CAA will have the approval of Industry (Buzz), and the 59% of Canadians who think that Kyoto is not the only way to tackle climate change. (and likely all those citizens who think Kyoto targets will kill their 'new' jobs)
May is a good month for an election.
Post a Comment