Harper says Canada will lead the fight against climate change

Stephen Harper says Canada will be a world leader in the fight against global warming and in the development of clean energy technology.

Harper chose climate Change as the topic of his address to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Sydney, Australia.   He stressed the need for an inclusive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that involves all countries working toward common targets.

Harper outlined Canada’s approach, saying the plan could be model for a new international agreement. The plan includes:

  • Mandatory targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18% per unit of production over the next 3 years, and then a further 2% reduction in intensity each year thereafter
  • Macro GHG reduction targets of 20% by 2010 and 50-70% by 2050 over 2006 levels
  • Domestic carbon market and emissions trading regime
  • Clean Technology Fund for developing new technologies
  • Use of international credits such as the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism

We want to be a world leader in the fight against global warming and the development of clean energy technology, we want to lead not by lecturing but by example, we want to share our knowledge and experience, and we want to work with the entire international community in the quest for clean energy.

APEC leaders agreed to common “aspirational targets” at the close of the summit the following day, representing the first time both the United States and China have participated in an international climate change declaration. However, the declaration quickly rejected by environmental groups for not including legally binding targets.


22 thoughts on “Harper says Canada will lead the fight against climate change

  1. We could build a stronger economic future around the sustainable industries that will be needed to undo the damage that has been done to our climate. There will be plenty of jobs when it comes time to save ourselves from extinction. I just hope we have the people to fill them. If we develop these industries now we might save the economy and our hides.

  2. well u cant possibly agree with someone who will enrich already rich oil companies and destroy our environment by adopting pseudo environment plans. If u do, u are retarded.

  3. Harper is right on. His plan will help the environment without killing industry. If you look closely at Greenshift, it’s a cash grab that will kill industry and send hundreds of thousands home without a job while the liberals throw their cash around recklessly like always. WE CAN’T AFFORD ANOTHER LIBERAL FIASCO.

  4. Harper is so right. we do need a ‘balanced’ approach. I mean we don’t know for sure that climate change is real. It is far more important ensure that the ecconomy is resiliant in these troubled ecconomic times, Focusing on the ecconomy will motivate people to do the right thing, and buy low consumption light bulbs. By taking the measured approach Harper has made sure that Canadians can feel proud, Canada has become a nation that leads the way, as an environmental leader in the next century.

  5. That’s just your opinion my friend, I’m Canadian, and Canada does things because of our interests, ever common interests with the USA our friend and ally. Besides, we have earned our right to our sovereignty. It’s one thing to hate someone on the basis on an assumed idea, another when so many people in Canada don’t feel their right to vote is good enough, the right that was given to us by those who sacrificed their lives to establish. You don’t like Stephen, vote him out then and quit whining.

  6. Yes yes..the word “balance” means that we have alot more oil to suck out of Alberta so lets put off greenhouse gas emmission cuts until we can make all the money we can. That is what he is saying. That is the old narrow approach to economic prosperity. Economists have given it up, scientists gave it up long before, but our leaders still read the old text books. Let’s buy Mr. Harper a library card, shall we.

  7. I can barely even listen to him, he’s so full of crap. He’s basically saying that he believes in doing something as long as big bussiness does not get affected. Listen to 3:30, you can’t have regulations where bussiness get to do what they want!

  8. YOU are an idiot if you’re 40 years old and can’t see that Mars’ temperature getting hotter is not a man-made occurence.
    It’s all there if you care to do the research.
    But we can’t let facts get in the way of hysteria, can we?

  9. Thank you for clearing that up, PrimarySource888. It’s quite refreshing to know that there are people who are not afraid to tell the truth. If I could give you a thumbs up, i would!

  10. Glimate change is true and it is also happening. But, there is no theory that can exactly explain how to reduce green-house gas emission. If we shut down our machines, we have no job and we goona die. We doomed earlier than we thought. Here in Canada, I am using my air-conditioner, but I didn’t use last year this month.

  11. The science was absolutely NOT tentative and contradictory in 2004.

    I’ve followed the issue for years. Believe me when I say that in 2004 there was NO question about global warming and it’s causes.

    Don’t be fooled by the “90% certainty” stuff that came out of the IPCC last Feb..that’s was watered down language. Ask the scientists who do the science (ex. NOT Tim Ball/Bob Carter/Tim Paterson/etc). They will say there’s no uncertainty.

    In 2004, Harper was casting doubt. That is inexcusable.

  12. How is he in any way lying? Climate change science WAS tentative and contradictory until 2004 when a 90% scientific consensus was finally reached, it was big news, remember? Co2 absolutely IS essential for life on this planet.

    Its not true that all their targets are intensity based. They only use intensity targets until 2012 but its not an intensity based plan. There are absolute targets after 2012, such as 20% absolute reduction by 2020 and 50-70% absolute reduction by 2050, over 2006 levels.

  13. What a lying pos.

    Harper talks about “realistic” reductions. The translation? He’ll do as little as possible, and that’s exactly what he IS doing.

    It was just a few years ago that he said Kyoto was based on “tentative and contradictory” science. He also said Co2 is “essential to life”.

    Now he’s talking about “intensity” targets. All of his reductions are intensity levels.

    He’s a master bullshitter. maybe that’s what makes you happy.

  14. It is nice to have a well spoken PM that can actually get up and talk about a topic in a understandable and confident fashion. Cretien would never be able to get up there and speak and Dion would be incoherant and make this country look like buffoons.

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