Stephen Harper's Environmental Changes
It has recently been announced that Stephen Harper plans to axe the Climate Change programs by over 40% and cut several programs including the one tonne challenge. He also doesn't plan to meet Canada's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Now to be fair to him, I realistically don't think we could cut emissions by 30% over the next six years. However, that should not excuse us of doing nothing. He promised a made in Canada plan, yet no plan has been released and all he promises is to cut climate change programs without instituting any alternatives.
Now I'll admit I don't know a lot about the climate change programs and their effectiveness therefore if they are just costing money and not having any effect, I agree they should be cut. But I have a tough time imagining that full thorough proper review of all the programs has been done since taking office. Here in BC, the BC Liberals launched a core review over their first term as did the Liberals federally in their first term. During those reviews each program was reviewed carefully and ones which weren't delivering the best value or could be done by the private sector were eliminated. However, this took over a year to do, not 2 months. The fact they were cut so early on suggests it was done more due to the neo-conservative ideology rather than facts. The proper course would be to have the programs reviewed at the committee level where the committee would make recommendations and the opposition parties could write dissenting reports. Contrary to what some think, committee reports are generally well thought out and not highly partisan at all. They talk to several witnesses and do many first hand investigations and then make recommendations based on those. Sometimes they even have outside groups put together to do a non-partisan report such as the MacKay Report (this was done by Harold MacKay, who is not related to Peter MacKay) on reforming financial institutions, which was used to update legislation for financial institutions. Likewise for telecommunications a recent report commissioned by the Liberals has come out. I believe the environment is an area where such a report could be useful.
I realize the Kyoto targets are not achievable contrary to what some say. But we still must reduce emissions and set targets which are achievable and that the government will take action to ensure they are achieved. Part of the reason some countries such as most EU countries have succeeded at meeting their Kyoto targets is due to changes in their economy. In Britain, Thatcher's policies ultimately decimated the steel and coal industries who were the biggest polluters so as the British economy shifted away from those two sectors, thus emissions went down. In Canada our big polluters are industry mainly in Ontario and Oil mainly in Alberta. Decimating either industry is not an option since unlike in Britain where the coal and steel industries were unprofitable and relied heavily on subsidies, these industries are generally profitable and contribute greatly to the economy. Instead we must work with industry to produce greener products. Alberta already is leading the way in using wind power so moving to a cleaner environment will not necessarily devastate Alberta and Ontario's economy if done properly.
It is unfortunate that the Liberals in the past didn't set clear targets or a clear plan for reducing emissions. Since they never had a plan for meeting Kyoto targets, it is now been easy for the Conservatives to walk away from doing anything about the environment whereas had a plan been layed out, it would have been political suicide to do so.
My advice to the Conservatives, is hold off on the cuts to climate change programs until a full thorough review has been done. I am all for cutting ineffective programs, but lets do a proper review. Also make sure you have an alternative in place before making the cuts. Finally they need to set actual numerical targets.
Now I'll admit I don't know a lot about the climate change programs and their effectiveness therefore if they are just costing money and not having any effect, I agree they should be cut. But I have a tough time imagining that full thorough proper review of all the programs has been done since taking office. Here in BC, the BC Liberals launched a core review over their first term as did the Liberals federally in their first term. During those reviews each program was reviewed carefully and ones which weren't delivering the best value or could be done by the private sector were eliminated. However, this took over a year to do, not 2 months. The fact they were cut so early on suggests it was done more due to the neo-conservative ideology rather than facts. The proper course would be to have the programs reviewed at the committee level where the committee would make recommendations and the opposition parties could write dissenting reports. Contrary to what some think, committee reports are generally well thought out and not highly partisan at all. They talk to several witnesses and do many first hand investigations and then make recommendations based on those. Sometimes they even have outside groups put together to do a non-partisan report such as the MacKay Report (this was done by Harold MacKay, who is not related to Peter MacKay) on reforming financial institutions, which was used to update legislation for financial institutions. Likewise for telecommunications a recent report commissioned by the Liberals has come out. I believe the environment is an area where such a report could be useful.
I realize the Kyoto targets are not achievable contrary to what some say. But we still must reduce emissions and set targets which are achievable and that the government will take action to ensure they are achieved. Part of the reason some countries such as most EU countries have succeeded at meeting their Kyoto targets is due to changes in their economy. In Britain, Thatcher's policies ultimately decimated the steel and coal industries who were the biggest polluters so as the British economy shifted away from those two sectors, thus emissions went down. In Canada our big polluters are industry mainly in Ontario and Oil mainly in Alberta. Decimating either industry is not an option since unlike in Britain where the coal and steel industries were unprofitable and relied heavily on subsidies, these industries are generally profitable and contribute greatly to the economy. Instead we must work with industry to produce greener products. Alberta already is leading the way in using wind power so moving to a cleaner environment will not necessarily devastate Alberta and Ontario's economy if done properly.
It is unfortunate that the Liberals in the past didn't set clear targets or a clear plan for reducing emissions. Since they never had a plan for meeting Kyoto targets, it is now been easy for the Conservatives to walk away from doing anything about the environment whereas had a plan been layed out, it would have been political suicide to do so.
My advice to the Conservatives, is hold off on the cuts to climate change programs until a full thorough review has been done. I am all for cutting ineffective programs, but lets do a proper review. Also make sure you have an alternative in place before making the cuts. Finally they need to set actual numerical targets.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 11:11 PM
8 Comments:
Strange really, a growth in emisions means that our ecomomy is chugging along. Why would anyone want me or my neighbors out of work seems strange indeed. Good post.
I don't think growth in emissions is necessary for our economy to grow. However, I also don't think that reducing emissions must mean a weaker economy. In fact the emphasis should be on switching to greener products rather than shutting down industries. This can be done by giving tax breaks to green companies. Here in BC, the PST is removed on green cars so policies like that should be adopted as opposed to a strict regulatory regime as the Bloc and NDP advocate. However, doing nothing is not the solution.
The neoconservative agenda is being fully persued by the Harper government when they're talking about cutting Kyoto programs after being reviewed for two months.
I agree, a proper review needs to take place.
There are some things that I believe money is worth being spent on: 1. Health Care, 2. Education, 3. the Environment.
If for any reason we're pumping money into an inefficiant program, then let's either cut it or reform it so we can achieve the goals originally intended. Cutting a program and replacing it with something that is inadequate does not do the same job - ie. replacing our Kyoto initiatives with transit subsidies.
The Liberals did drop the Kyoto ball. Chretien signed up on a whim (the 'legacy' thing he needed to leave behind) and Dion made minimal progress towards implimenting it. The CPC is in a perfect situation where they can blame the Liberals for not getting it started and thus, giving the electorate a reason for quiting early, making them look like the good guys who REALLY tried but they just weren't prepared enough by the previous governments.
That's how Harper will get away with it.
I do agree with Miles on this issue. Whereas the Conservatives may have dropped these programs due to ineffectiveness, we don't really know for sure. It may be simply a case that the environmental approach of these programs is not aligned with the environmental approach of the Conservatives. I did write my MP Harper to express my concerns as a conservative supporter that Harper act as decisively on the environment as he has in other areas and that the dropped programs be replaced with SOMETHING. Even as an Albertan, I believe we need to change tax policies to benefit "green" energy generation and energy efficiency as Miles indicated. Clean coal technology (coal gasification) should be serviously investigated. Agreed the environment and health care were the Achilles Heel of the Libs but I still hope Harper will act. After all, Elibeth May of the Sierra Club admitted in a radio interview that the environmental record of Brian Mulroney was superior to that of Chretien and Martin.
I don't think we can realistically meet our Kyoto targets, but I am concerned the Conservatives will use this as an excuse to do nothing. We should do something. I would much rather we reduce our emissions by 10% over the next six years, which is do able, versus not reduce them at all. I also don't think transit tax credits are a bad idea either, but I feel this is an example of rushing something through without looking at the full ramfications. This is one that there should be a committee report on, which would look at the effectiveness of each program and decide where they are more effective. That is one thing the Liberals did well is they often contrary to what some say did follow committee reports, which were based on expert advice from outside the government. Unfortunatley with Harper I think he is more interested in following his ideology than listening to others.
Indian rain dances don't really work
I agree Indian rain dances don't work either. My point is I am concerned the Conservatives are taking the attitude we should just ignore the environment. The reality is Canadians value the environment highly and ignoring it is not only bad public policy in terms of winning votes, it is not fair to our future generations either.
Lois - I don't support the Kyoto Protocol either. My reason for opposing withdrawal is I am worried that it would hurt our reputation. That being said, not meeting our Kyoto targets doesn't mean we don't do anything. As for the environment, I actually live right downtown so I can walk to work and when I occassionally drive, I don't drive very far. I also drive a mid-sized car, rather than a gas guzzling SUV. Actually Gas Taxes are essentially capped, but gas prices aren't and nor sure should they. Higher prices is simply a signal from the market that demand is exceeding supply and people need to cut back. I don't believe that the free market is automatically bad for the environment. Some government intervention is needed for sure, but through tax credits they can encourage a green economy without heavy intervention.
Post a Comment
<< Home