Ambrose tells it like it is

May 16, 2006 4 Comments »

From today’s SP:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose arrived at her new job and asked them to translate the Kyoto-enforced reduction of 195 megatonnes of carbon into terms she could understand.

The bureaucrats fiddled with calculators and pencils. Well, they said, it’s a bit more than all the power generation in Canada. If the country went dark and cut back a few hundred thousand cars, it could hit the target.

That’s when the rubber hit the road for the petite firecracker MP from Alberta. She declared Kyoto, as we know it in Canada, dead.

Wow – I knew that we had increased emissions by 35% since 1990, so getting them down to 6% below those levels was unattainable, but I never guessed just how unattainable. The question is, why didn’t anyone else know this by now? My guess: willful ignorance.

Related Posts

4 Comments

  1. Saskboy May 17, 2006 at 11:44 am -

    Canada’s population hasn’t increased by more than 30% since 1990, so it means we’re energy hogs, clearly. We have to have a motive other than our impending ecological doom I guess before conservatives realize that climate change isn’t a joke the economy can laugh off.

  2. Ian H. May 17, 2006 at 12:10 pm -

    I don’t think anyone’s laughing, just the Cons are willing to admit that paying off third-world companies is not a good way to reduce the overall world CO2 level. C’mon – all the power plants in Canada shut down? It’s not going to be a governmental solution that solves this. Until consumers are willing to change their energy consumption habits (and why would they, with gas and oil so (relatively) cheap?), our emission levels are not going to stop going up.
    I think our emissions lvels are also a bit misleading – we have to heat our houses 8 months of the year, so obviously we’re going to have higher energy consumption and consequent emissions than your average citizen of Mombasa.

  3. Saskboy May 19, 2006 at 4:26 pm -

    Clearly we can’t shut down our power plants, but we can impose tax breaks and levy penalties on things either good or bad for the environment, without negatively impacting the economy. Gasoline is not so cheap that people would buy a 20MPG vehicle if a 100MPG vehicle were made cheaper by a tax break. Auto manufacturers would have non-stop work replacing the vehicle fleet. And we’d save at least 4 times the gas we’re using by doing that alone.

    The Cons have stopped doing the only environmental programs we have right now [which are lame in some ways] and have only promised to do something in 4 months. When you’re losing a war, you don’t surrender your own position with the hope of regrouping later.

    I think it’s clear that the Cons don’t understand the scope of the problem or how important it is to our economy to fix our grotesque energy consumption.

  4. Jeremy May 26, 2006 at 3:29 pm -

    Saskboy, high gas prices are already forcing people to focus on fuel efficiency, so there’s no real need for the gov to get involved. Oh, and I’m not sure there are 100MPG cars that are also practical for families. We are already seeing some of those mini cars, and hybrids are coming down in price, thankfully.

    I think it’s clear the Cons don’t want to waste money on programs that don’t work; a reasonable position.