In the spirit of fairness I should give the environmentalists some equal time on the Budget Implementation debate. While I disagree with their framework I have to admit that they have a point regarding the Liberal Kyoto ‘Plan’. Let us start with the initial assumption that we must follow through on our Kyoto commitments. By adding a provision into the Budget Implementation Bill (and I will add, not mentioned in the Throne Speech or the actual Budget) have the Liberals accomplish any appreciable difference for Kyoto and/or the environment?
...The groups, including the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the David Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace, say the provision is creating "unnecessary and divisive debate" on the regulation of greenhouse gases.
In a statement released Monday, the groups say they are concerned that the amendments are being proposed without debate, and could undermine a five-year review of the act that is currently taking place.
Ah, that democratic deficit. The group above knows that Kyoto is supported by the BQ and NDP. If the Liberals introduced this "carbon tax" in independent legislation it would have a good chance of passing. Instead the Liberals are using this as a political tool. But I can be the only one who thinks that Kyoto has always been a political tool for the Liberals. I sense that the NDP, the BQ and the Greens for that matter are ideologically attached to Kyoto (I mean that as a compliment not as a slander) whereas the Liberals are attached to the votes it will attract.
Here is how the David Suzuki Foundation reacted to the side deal with automakers.
...“To make a real contribution to Kyoto, the emission reductions must be quantified with a rigorous, credible methodology laid out in the agreement,” added Dr. Matthew Bramley, director, climate change with the Pembina Institute. “If the methodology is unclear, we cannot know if the reductions are real.” [Emphasis added]
Both environmental organizations say that limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles are best set by regulation – something the government already has the power to do under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. But in the absence of regulation, a voluntary agreement can only be credible and effective if it:
Contains an automatic trigger for regulations to kick in if interim targets are missed;
Lays out a rigorous, credible methodology for quantifying emission reductions;
Requires public reporting and third-party verification of progress towards targets.
“If these conditions are not met, the government will be caving in to business interests instead of doing what is needed to meet Canada’s legal obligations under the Kyoto Protocol,” said Marshall.
And that is the bottom line, isn't it? Unless you have a plan how can you actual reach the targets? Instead of actually doing something the Liberals are attempting that 'have it both ways' strategy. But they do this on practically everything and they are 'the natural governing party' so why wouldn't they?
