Tory environment plan

April 26 to 27, 2007 – Environment Minister John Baird announces the government’s industry plan to regulate industry and reduce greenhouse gases.

NDP leader Jack Layton, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, environmentalist David Suzuki and former Vice President Al Gore criticize the plan.

33 thoughts on “Tory environment plan

  1. As our great and noble Environment Minister drinks from an Aquinafina Bottle – leading by example eh Minister?
    Why is Canada not meeting it’s potential – we have the means to meet some SERIOUS hard targets. Ecological action does not mean Economic Downfall – it actually means economic Prosperity. I was there in the UN when Baird skipped out on his presentation for Mojito’s and we were instead spoken too by Rep’s from Encana! Rheortic yet again

  2. Harper on the Environment??? This Government is so BIG on environmental issues it has frozen the budget of the Canadian Wildlife Service at a time when climate change is detrimental to already endangered species. I guess once again if we don’t see it there is no problem,after all Polar Bears can’t vote eh, Mr.Harper.

  3. The Harper Plan is aimed at industry. And it sets intensity targets. It does not deal with buildings, municipalities, mass transportation, renewable energy infrastructure, or the health of the soil.

  4. Actual regulations?

    First off, the so-called regulations allow Canada’s largest industrial emitters to INCREASE their total amount of emissions. This is because the regulations are based on intensity-targets, rather than an over all cap. Here’s some info for ya, industry actually decreased their emissions-intensity over the past ten years, even without any regulations.

  5. I’m not exactly defending it, I’m just saying you can’t dismiss their plan as being “smoke and mirrors”. Its way more than that. But you still haven’t answered my question. Whould the Tories be more credible on the environement if they promised to meet the Kyoto emmission targets by 2008? Seriously, what do they need to do?

  6. You shouldn’t defend what is clearly a terrible policy. Every environmentalist worth their salt is against this policy. Suzuki, Gore, Pembina institute, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and more … all have publicly stated they are against it. Why would you try to defend the indefensible?

  7. They did not! The Carbon Budget aims to set an Absolute Cap, starting Jan. 1, 2008. There is nothing about intensity targets in the Carbon Budget.

    Moreover, the Carbon Budget is not simply about a technology fund. The funds are used for the development and deployment of technologies, yes, but the real aim is PROJECTS that demonstrably reduce emissions. Case in point, the Carbon Budget specifically states that it will use 100% of funds to invest in renewable energy projects

  8. Their plan has all of that! They’re just not going fast enough for you, or maybe there’s nothing they can do that you will support. What’s the magic target year, if not 2020?

  9. So, in sum, the Cons need to deliver a serious, realistic plan for getting Canada to reduce its absolute emissions. They haven’t done it, they won’t do it, and what they’ve delivered, is utter crap.

  10. There also needs to be major investments in clean energy production (which accounts for about 30% of emissions in Canada), there needs to be a major push for energy efficient buildings in Canada, and there needs to be a major move towards more efficient transportation. Cities are crucial here. Finally, there needs to be a push towards carbon sequestration in soil and forests. The soil is the best storage mechanism for carbon, returning it to a state of health is absolutely necessary.

  11. What do they need to do? Saying that they’ll meet the targets by 2012 (the targets run from 2008-2012) is not enough. They need a serious plan to get there.
    The Carbon Budget is a much better means of addressing the emissions of Industry. It sets a hard cap and has financial penalties for companies that don’t make their targets. Companies can retrieve their losses for projects that can demonstrably reduce their emissions. Now this accounts for only about 50% of Canada’s emissions mind you.

  12. I meant the plan would reach the Kyoto emmissions targets by 2020. Since Kyoto is the benchmark everyone is using, when do you think Canada should meet its Kyoto target? 2008?

  13. I’m not exactly defenging it, I’m just saying you can’t dismiss their plan as being “smoke and mirrors”. Its way more than that. But you still haven’t answered my question. Whould the Tories be more credible on the environement if they promised to meet the Kyoto emmission targets by 2008? Seriously, what do they need to do?

  14. They do so apply to the tar sands. It came out today that two smog creating polutants are exempt for the tar sands for some reason, but all other regulations apply equally to all industries.

  15. Actual regulations?

    First off, the so-called regulations allow Canada’s largest industrial emitters to INCREASE their total amount of emissions. This is because the regulations are based on intensity-targets, rather than an over all cap. Here’s some info for ya, industry actually decreased their emissions-intensity over the past ten years, even without any regulations.

  16. Some of the words used to describe the Green Plan include, “fraud,” “scam,” and “smoke and mirrors.”

    Get it straight, this current government has ZERO credibility on the environmental file.

  17. We’ll continue to make fools of you. You’re party is a disgrace to our country and our international reputation. Anyone can see that but Conservative partisans who clearly have their heads up their ass.

  18. You completely neglect the fact that the Tar Sands are being encouraged to expand by 5 times and that it is already the biggest industrial polluter in Canada.

  19. They do so apply to the tar sands. It came out today that two smog creating polutants are exempt for the tar sands for some reason, but all other regulations apply equally to all industries.

  20. Here’s something else, the so-called regulations WON’T be regulating Canada’s largest industrial emitter, the tar sands. What’s more, the Tories want to expand the Tar Sands production by 5 times over “a relatively short period of time”. If this happens, the Tar Sands will be emitting over twice as much carbon equivalent than do all Canada’s current fleet of cars and trucks.

  21. You can’t really call it smoke and mirrors when they’re spending $9 billion, implementing actual regulations and a carbon market. What should the Tories do to be more credible, promise (and fail) to meet the Kyoto targets?

  22. Some of the words used to describe the Green Plan include, “fraud,” “scam,” and “smoke and mirrors.”

    Get it straight, this current government has ZERO credibility on the environmental file.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s