Discussion:
Harper: 'So the U.S. is ahead of us in reducing greenhouse gases; so what?'
(too old to reply)
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-03 02:05:34 UTC
Permalink
At one time, not too far back in time, Harper's stance was: 'Why the
hell should Canada reduce its greenhouse gases when the U.S. hasn't?'
And now that Obama is leading his country into greenhouse-reducing
territory - BIG time - this is Harper's stance now . . . .
___________________________________________
National Bureau - Monday, June 02, 2014


No need for Canada to copy new U.S. rules on power plant greenhouse gas
emissions: Harper


OTTAWA - Canada will not follow suit after the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency announced new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) from power plants by 30% by 2030, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said.

Harper said that's because Canada doesn't need to.

"This government two years ago began implementing its regulations that
will reduce our emissions in that sector by 46% by 2030," Harper said
Monday. "Even before beginning, we had an electricity sector that is
cleaner than that in the United States."

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie said the difference is the U.S. is
trying to reduce its use of coal, but she wants to see a different
target in Canada -- the oil and gas sector.

"The U.S. has gone after coal-fired electricity, their largest emitter,"
Leslie said. "We are not going after our largest emitter, which is the
oil and gas sector."

She didn't explain what "going after" Canada's oil and gas sector would
involve and whether the NDP would allow continued oilsands development.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said Harper may take pride in federal
coal regulations, but for her, they're "not that exciting."

"So, yes, Mr. Harper, it's true there have been regulations on the
coal-fired power sector in Canada for two years, but they don't have any
effect in 2015," May said.

It's not clear how or if the new U.S. regulations will affect Obama's
eventual decision on whether to approve the proposed Keystone XL oil
pipeline.
Alan Baker
2014-06-03 03:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
At one time, not too far back in time, Harper's stance was: 'Why the
hell should Canada reduce its greenhouse gases when the U.S. hasn't?'
And now that Obama is leading his country into greenhouse-reducing
territory - BIG time - this is Harper's stance now . . . .
Only by your own source, they're NOT ahead of us.
Post by {~_~}Раиса
___________________________________________
National Bureau - Monday, June 02, 2014
No need for Canada to copy new U.S. rules on power plant greenhouse gas
emissions: Harper
OTTAWA - Canada will not follow suit after the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency announced new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) from power plants by 30% by 2030, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said.
Harper said that's because Canada doesn't need to.
"This government two years ago began implementing its regulations that
will reduce our emissions in that sector by 46% by 2030," Harper said
Monday. "Even before beginning, we had an electricity sector that is
cleaner than that in the United States."
NDP environment critic Megan Leslie said the difference is the U.S. is
trying to reduce its use of coal, but she wants to see a different
target in Canada -- the oil and gas sector.
"The U.S. has gone after coal-fired electricity, their largest
emitter," Leslie said. "We are not going after our largest emitter,
which is the oil and gas sector."
She didn't explain what "going after" Canada's oil and gas sector would
involve and whether the NDP would allow continued oilsands development.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said Harper may take pride in federal
coal regulations, but for her, they're "not that exciting."
"So, yes, Mr. Harper, it's true there have been regulations on the
coal-fired power sector in Canada for two years, but they don't have
any effect in 2015," May said.
It's not clear how or if the new U.S. regulations will affect Obama's
eventual decision on whether to approve the proposed Keystone XL oil
pipeline.
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-03 20:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Only by your own source, they're NOT ahead of us.
Yes they are.
Alan Baker
2014-06-03 20:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
Only by your own source, they're NOT ahead of us.
Yes they are.
Nope. I guess that's why you snipped this, huh:

<quote author=Karen>
Canada will not follow suit after the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency announced new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) from
power plants by 30% by 2030, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said.

Harper said that's because Canada doesn't need to.

"This government two years ago began implementing its regulations that
will reduce our emissions in that sector by 46% by 2030," Harper said
Monday. "Even before beginning, we had an electricity sector that is
cleaner than that in the United States."
</quote>

So your own source says that the US is planning a reduction of 30%
compared to Canada's 46% reduction over the same period.
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-03 21:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
So your own source says that the US is planning a reduction of 30%
compared to Canada's 46% reduction over the same period.
"Planning to" is a much safer bet in Obama's hands than it is in
Harper's. (>_<)
Alan Baker
2014-06-03 21:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
So your own source says that the US is planning a reduction of 30%
compared to Canada's 46% reduction over the same period.
"Planning to" is a much safer bet in Obama's hands than it is in
Harper's. (>_<)
Except Harper's regs have been in place for two years...

...as your source (now snipped; surprise, surprise!) notes.
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-06 01:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
So your own source says that the US is planning a reduction of 30%
compared to Canada's 46% reduction over the same period.
"Planning to" is a much safer bet in Obama's hands than it is in
Harper's. (>_<)
Except Harper's regs have been in place for two years...
So what? 'Regs' without action or even intent to action are shit
promises - like everything else that comes from Harper and his Cons.
The American economy is chugging along nicely, with green initiatives
doing a whole lot of the boosting to it.

Harper is still spending his time visiting Israel and Europe and now
Poland. The guy can't face the heat at home anymore.
And he surely isn't gaining any points by meddling in the eastern
European issues. Not here, not in the U.S. and not even in Europe.

The guy is a loser all round.
Alan Baker
2014-06-06 08:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
So your own source says that the US is planning a reduction of 30%
compared to Canada's 46% reduction over the same period.
"Planning to" is a much safer bet in Obama's hands than it is in
Harper's. (>_<)
Except Harper's regs have been in place for two years...
So what? 'Regs' without action or even intent to action are shit
promises - like everything else that comes from Harper and his Cons.
Regulations in place are more concrete than plans, Karen.
Post by {~_~}Раиса
The American economy is chugging along nicely, with green initiatives
doing a whole lot of the boosting to it.
LOL!

You think their economy is "chugging along nicely", do you?
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-06 23:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
So what? 'Regs' without action or even intent to action are shit
promises - like everything else that comes from Harper and his Cons.
Regulations in place are more concrete than plans, Karen.
How?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
The American economy is chugging along nicely, with green initiatives
doing a whole lot of the boosting to it.
LOL!
You think their economy is "chugging along nicely", do you?
Today's news shows it is. Yep . . . yep . . . yep . . .
M.I.Wakefield
2014-06-07 00:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Regulations in place are more concrete than plans, Karen.
How?
Regulations are rules that people and companies have to follow now.

Plans are rules that people and companies might have to follow in the
future.
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-07 21:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Regulations are rules that people and companies have to follow now.
No they don't. Because the vast majority of Harper's new rules and
regulations have ZERO enforcement and penalties.
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Plans are rules that people and companies might have to follow in the
future.
Unless they're 'plans' like Obama has implemented - with definite target
dates and CO2 reduction numbers.
And they're not bullshit rhetoric masquerading as environmental rules
that have no hope in hell of being achieved - because he's behind the
huge expansion of the stinking tarsands.

'Oil sands production is expected to increase from 1.9 million barrels
per day in 2012 to 3.8 million barrels per day in 2022'. ~ Alberta
Energy

He's a liar. And only stupid people haven't caught on to that fact
eight+ years into his reign from Ottawa.
Alan Baker
2014-06-08 06:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Regulations are rules that people and companies have to follow now.
No they don't. Because the vast majority of Harper's new rules and
regulations have ZERO enforcement and penalties.
Cite!
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Plans are rules that people and companies might have to follow in the
future.
Unless they're 'plans' like Obama has implemented - with definite
target dates and CO2 reduction numbers.
So regulations could be ignored...

...but plans WITHOUT regulations will be automatically followed?
Post by {~_~}Раиса
And they're not bullshit rhetoric masquerading as environmental rules
that have no hope in hell of being achieved - because he's behind the
huge expansion of the stinking tarsands.
'Oil sands production is expected to increase from 1.9 million barrels
per day in 2012 to 3.8 million barrels per day in 2022'. ~ Alberta
Energy
OK.

And that has what to do with the price of tea, etc.
Post by {~_~}Раиса
He's a liar. And only stupid people haven't caught on to that fact
eight+ years into his reign from Ottawa.
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-08 20:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
'Oil sands production is expected to increase from 1.9 million barrels
per day in 2012 to 3.8 million barrels per day in 2022'. ~ Alberta
Energy
OK.
And that has what to do with the price of tea, etc.
Take some time to think about it, stupid. Get back to us in a month or
two - or three if you need more time . . . (>_<)
Alan Baker
2014-06-08 23:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
'Oil sands production is expected to increase from 1.9 million barrels
per day in 2012 to 3.8 million barrels per day in 2022'. ~ Alberta
Energy
OK.
And that has what to do with the price of tea, etc.
Take some time to think about it, stupid. Get back to us in a month or
two - or three if you need more time . . . (>_<)
So you can't articulate your own...

...well let's be kind and call them "thoughts".

:-)

Alan Baker
2014-06-07 02:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
So what? 'Regs' without action or even intent to action are shit
promises - like everything else that comes from Harper and his Cons.
Regulations in place are more concrete than plans, Karen.
How?
You really can't figure that out?
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
The American economy is chugging along nicely, with green initiatives
doing a whole lot of the boosting to it.
LOL!
You think their economy is "chugging along nicely", do you?
Today's news shows it is. Yep . . . yep . . . yep . . .
Sorry, but I'd like to see some figures along with the source.
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-07 21:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
You think their economy is "chugging along nicely", do you?
Today's news shows it is. Yep . . . yep . . . yep . . .
Sorry, but I'd like to see some figures along with the source.
You know where to find 'em, 'Baker' . . . . 'the Internet can be your
biggest friend for information' . . . . (^o^)
Alan Baker
2014-06-08 06:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
You think their economy is "chugging along nicely", do you?
Today's news shows it is. Yep . . . yep . . . yep . . .
Sorry, but I'd like to see some figures along with the source.
You know where to find 'em, 'Baker' . . . . 'the Internet can be your
biggest friend for information' . . . . (^o^)
But apparently... ...not yours.
Greg Carr
2014-06-07 01:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
So your own source says that the US is planning a reduction of 30%
compared to Canada's 46% reduction over the same period.
"Planning to" is a much safer bet in Obama's hands than it is in
Harper's. (>_<)
Except Harper's regs have been in place for two years...
So what? 'Regs' without action or even intent to action are shit
promises - like everything else that comes from Harper and his Cons.
The American economy is chugging along nicely, with green initiatives
doing a whole lot of the boosting to it.
Harper is still spending his time visiting Israel and Europe and now
Poland. The guy can't face the heat at home anymore.
And he surely isn't gaining any points by meddling in the eastern
European issues. Not here, not in the U.S. and not even in Europe.
The guy is a loser all round.
Trudeau and company fully support Harper and company on the Ukranian
issues as both seek to shore up the Ukranian-Canadian vote (over a
million of them).
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-07 21:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Harper is still spending his time visiting Israel and Europe and now
Poland. The guy can't face the heat at home anymore.
And he surely isn't gaining any points by meddling in the eastern
European issues. Not here, not in the U.S. and not even in Europe.
The guy is a loser all round.
Trudeau and company fully support Harper and company on the Ukranian
issues as both seek to shore up the Ukranian-Canadian vote (over a
million of them).
Then they're forgetting that a whole lot of Ukrainians in Canada would
never want to see their country become a member country of the European
Union.
Many of them have their roots in Russia, not the Ukraine, and fully
support what happened with Crimea. And many of them have roots in the
latest eastern region of Ukraine that also wants to split from the
Ukraine and become a Republic with ties to Russia.

Any political leader who starts playing the Ukraine immigrants in this
country had better get their facts and numbers straight before going
that route.
Greg Carr
2014-06-08 00:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Greg Carr
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Harper is still spending his time visiting Israel and Europe and now
Poland. The guy can't face the heat at home anymore.
And he surely isn't gaining any points by meddling in the eastern
European issues. Not here, not in the U.S. and not even in Europe.
The guy is a loser all round.
Trudeau and company fully support Harper and company on the Ukranian
issues as both seek to shore up the Ukranian-Canadian vote (over a
million of them).
Then they're forgetting that a whole lot of Ukrainians in Canada would
never want to see their country become a member country of the European
Union.
Many of them have their roots in Russia, not the Ukraine, and fully
support what happened with Crimea. And many of them have roots in the
latest eastern region of Ukraine that also wants to split from the
Ukraine and become a Republic with ties to Russia.
Any political leader who starts playing the Ukraine immigrants in this
country had better get their facts and numbers straight before going
that route.
Mulcair hasn't raised a stink really over Harper's policy on Ukraine and
Russia.
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-08 00:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Mulcair hasn't raised a stink really over Harper's policy on Ukraine and
Russia.
Because he's the most experienced party leader of the top three. He
knows when to keep his mouth shut.
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-03 21:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Only by your own source, they're NOT ahead of us.
Has Canada reduced GHG emissions?

Despite international commitments to drastically reduce GHGs, Canada has
not seen a substantial improvement on its per capita GHG emissions. In
1992, Canada signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCC), under which it committed to stabilizing GHG emissions at
1990 levels by 2000. In 2000, however, Canada’s absolute GHG emissions
were 22 per cent higher than they had been 10 years earlier.


How does Canada compare to its peer countries on GHG emissions?

Canada is one of the world's largest per capita GHG emitters. Canada
ranks 15th out of 17 OECD countries on GHG emissions per capita and
scores a “D” grade.3 In 2010, Canada’s GHG emissions were 20.3 tonnes
per capita, significantly higher than the 17-country average of 12.5
tonnes per capita. Canada’s per capita GHG emissions were nearly three
times greater than Switzerland’s, the top performer.

While Canada’s GHG emissions per capita have fallen since 1990, many
other countries have managed to decrease them even more. For example,
Germany and the U.K. reduced their per capita GHG emissions by 27 per
cent between 1990 and 2010.


Key Messages

Canada ranks 15th out of 17 countries for greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions per capita and earns a “D” grade.
Canada’s per capita GHG emissions decreased by nearly 5 per cent
between 1990 and 2010, while total GHG emissions in Canada grew 17 per cent.
The largest contributor to Canada’s GHG emissions is the energy
sector, which includes power generation (heat and electricity),
transportation, and fugitive sources.
Alan Baker
2014-06-03 21:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by Alan Baker
Only by your own source, they're NOT ahead of us.
Has Canada reduced GHG emissions?
What does that have to do with your erroneous claim?

Is that why you clipped it out again?
Loading...