Well, it begs the question: why the hell did the Conservatives pull down the government's climate change web page? Surely there was some useful information about the science behind climate change on there before?
Again, I'm going to show surprise at the wording the Conservatives are using:
"The time for talking about this and studying it in Canada is over. We have to get acting," Baird said, adding he would soon be meeting with other world ministers in Paris to discuss how Canada "can play catch-up" in reducing emissions.
"The planet's future is at stake," Baird told CBC News. "[Global warming] is a fact and it requires real action."
The wording used isn't about "studying the problem further" or "creating a comprehensive plan", it is now about setting strict emissions limits. Hooray?
I'll believe it when they take real action. I think they are stalling. I think they will make some token gestures in the budget but won't have a comprehensive plan. This Toronto Star article compares the deficit fight to Kyoto, with interesting parallels.
One of the Cons' big questions is how they will tackle the oil sands problem, which I think could actually hit their voter base. This TDH entry on some Liberal talking about why the oil sands are a federal issue (i.e. limits on oilsands != NEP2) is interesting.
I share your cynicism. I don't personally believe that the Cons will necessarily pull through on all their promises (or even that their goals are truly noble), I'm just surprised how fast they've changed their rhetoric.
As for environmental policies hitting their voter base, they have a lot of slack. Albertans aren't going to vote Liberal (much less NDP or Green), so unless another party shows up further right than the Cons they are safe. Actually, a Bloc Alberta party would do very, very well in that scenario. Furthermore, if the Cons adopt policies that negatively affect oilsands workers, it's not like any party would be able to call them out on it, because that only makes the Cons look like environmental heroes.
Reform was the Bloc Alberta so I doubt we'll see any of that again any time soon. :D
As for speed of rhetorical change: Yeah. I thought Harper was more rigid than that too. I guess the question now is, is he doing that just to get a majority, or he is "just like the other policians"? His flip-flops on many cultural issues (Québec, gay marriage) have shown great flexibility to shed the trappings of his conservative persona, but he hasn't really changed on the substance of things...
The NDP is playing with fire as well. The 30$ mil the Cons have put in Nathan Cullen's riding look pretty bad, IMHO, in the sense that it looks like they're buying him off. I mean he's still criticizing Harper, but we'll see what Layton comes through with.
Like I always say: never judge a pol by his speeches. (eg "Can you believe it? That flatulent codger Paul Martin is actually going to fix health care for a generation!")
And if you did, you'd still find Harper saying unequivocally that emission cuts fly in the face of "reality" (visions of Thatcher dancing in my head...) Maybe he'll revive Drive Clean and call it a day :P
The Cullen thing is total come-into-my-parlor shit. Makes them (and Layton's whole unending Monty Hall shtick) look excruciatingly dumb, and people don't vote for dumb.
Martin was kind of a weather wane, but Harper has been consistent for years on many themes, so I think I'm not alone, even amongst experienced political watchers, to be surprised by Harper's rapid dumping of some core facets of his political persona.
Agreed. Although, as long-time environmental watcher in terms of the media, I think we're seeing a rather dramatic shift in terms of coverage. Years and years of talking about el ninos and "freak" weather systems and whatever, and now we're finally starting see more connecting of the dots. I remember we had this sort of blip of green in the early 90s--Earth Day and Ferngully and lots of fluffy alternative stuff, but this time it seems a little more urgent and serious... which is why I think we're seeing it actually show up in the polls as a voting issue.
I think, had Harper tried to stick to his position, he'd be bowled under by the other parties. I also don't think he's changed all that much. I mean, he did cut huge chunks of money from departments researching climate change--entire departments and projects Dad was working with were just gone overnight.
As far as I'm concerned, the little song and dance he's putting on is no different than that 'addressing pollution as if it were greenhouse gas emissions' trick that Bush is pulling in the US... Clear Skies or Clean Air, or whatever the hell it is... it's just blowing smoke until we get to the polls.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-02-05 02:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-05 02:54 am (UTC)Not about the website, but the same issue...
Date: 2007-02-05 03:19 am (UTC)"The time for talking about this and studying it in Canada is over. We have to get acting," Baird said, adding he would soon be meeting with other world ministers in Paris to discuss how Canada "can play catch-up" in reducing emissions.
"The planet's future is at stake," Baird told CBC News. "[Global warming] is a fact and it requires real action."
The wording used isn't about "studying the problem further" or "creating a comprehensive plan", it is now about setting strict emissions limits. Hooray?
Hooray?
Date: 2007-02-05 03:39 am (UTC)One of the Cons' big questions is how they will tackle the oil sands problem, which I think could actually hit their voter base. This TDH entry on some Liberal talking about why the oil sands are a federal issue (i.e. limits on oilsands != NEP2) is interesting.
Re: Hooray?
Date: 2007-02-05 04:46 am (UTC)As for environmental policies hitting their voter base, they have a lot of slack. Albertans aren't going to vote Liberal (much less NDP or Green), so unless another party shows up further right than the Cons they are safe. Actually, a Bloc Alberta party would do very, very well in that scenario. Furthermore, if the Cons adopt policies that negatively affect oilsands workers, it's not like any party would be able to call them out on it, because that only makes the Cons look like environmental heroes.
Re: Hooray?
Date: 2007-02-05 05:07 am (UTC)As for speed of rhetorical change: Yeah. I thought Harper was more rigid than that too. I guess the question now is, is he doing that just to get a majority, or he is "just like the other policians"? His flip-flops on many cultural issues (Québec, gay marriage) have shown great flexibility to shed the trappings of his conservative persona, but he hasn't really changed on the substance of things...
The NDP is playing with fire as well. The 30$ mil the Cons have put in Nathan Cullen's riding look pretty bad, IMHO, in the sense that it looks like they're buying him off. I mean he's still criticizing Harper, but we'll see what Layton comes through with.
Re: Hooray?
Date: 2007-02-05 06:21 am (UTC)And if you did, you'd still find Harper saying unequivocally that emission cuts fly in the face of "reality" (visions of Thatcher dancing in my head...) Maybe he'll revive Drive Clean and call it a day :P
The Cullen thing is total come-into-my-parlor shit. Makes them (and Layton's whole unending Monty Hall shtick) look excruciatingly dumb, and people don't vote for dumb.
Re: Hooray?
Date: 2007-02-05 06:24 am (UTC)Re: Hooray?
Date: 2007-02-05 09:04 am (UTC)I think, had Harper tried to stick to his position, he'd be bowled under by the other parties. I also don't think he's changed all that much. I mean, he did cut huge chunks of money from departments researching climate change--entire departments and projects Dad was working with were just gone overnight.
As far as I'm concerned, the little song and dance he's putting on is no different than that 'addressing pollution as if it were greenhouse gas emissions' trick that Bush is pulling in the US... Clear Skies or Clean Air, or whatever the hell it is... it's just blowing smoke until we get to the polls.
Re: Hooray?
Date: 2007-02-05 10:36 pm (UTC)