Does anyone have a link to the interview referenced here. I would like to see this in full context.
...The NDP leader says he wants to see some "tough-minded" emission and pollution controls in the automobile and industrial sectors before he'll even consider helping the Tories pass key environmental legislation.
For me, it all comes down to who is willing to blink on Kyoto targets and since I don't think PM Harper will the rub is, will Jack Layton ave on short-term Kyoto targets? Well, it wasn't mentioned above.
Comments (11)
If Layton caves on Kyoto, he is finished. He knows it too.
Posted by Greg | January 8, 2007 11:26 AM
Posted on January 8, 2007 11:26
Also interesting in that article is the last paragraph where Layton (not a quote) enumerates all the issues that the NDP disagreed with the gov’t.
To me that reads like Layton is trying to prove they aren’t in bed with the CPC. In other words he’s saying to his base, ‘we might make a deal on the environment, or the budget, but we’re far from being nasty fascist conservatives …’
Cheers, lance
Posted by Lance | January 8, 2007 11:29 AM
Posted on January 8, 2007 11:29
Then it is over to Dion and Duceppe - which one blinks. If neither we could indeed see a spring election.
Posted by Greg Staples | January 8, 2007 11:29 AM
Posted on January 8, 2007 11:29
I think Harper’s plan B is to throw open the federal vault to Quebec.
Posted by Greg | January 8, 2007 11:52 AM
Posted on January 8, 2007 11:52
“tough-minded” emission and pollution controls in the automobile and industrial sectors
For the latter (pollution controls), I don’t see why Harper would object to this, it is already included as part of the clean air proposals to reduce smog.
For emission controls, anyone with half a brain knows it can’t be done overnight without suddenly shutting down plants and losing jobs. I think they’ll give in by having interim targets in addition to the 2050 targets. I see this as being negotiable, just need to figure out some numbers.
Posted by TorontoCrawler | January 8, 2007 11:57 AM
Posted on January 8, 2007 11:57
Sinister Greg, do you yourself actually think the Kyoto emissions targets are achievable? Or are you saying that the base would tolerate not making the targets, as long as the money is paid for “credits”? Or are you saying that the base is absolutely demanding something which you yourself believe to be impossible?
Posted by Mark Ch | January 8, 2007 12:09 PM
Posted on January 8, 2007 12:09
“Does anyone have a link to the interview referenced here. I would like to see this in full context.”
You can listen to Mr. Layton talking to Rex Murphy on Cross Country Checkup (Jan. 7). Just go to: http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/archives.html The 1:02:28 mark is where Layton’s interview begins. PM Harper & Stephane Dion were also interviewed by Rex yesterday.
Posted by Gabby in QC | January 8, 2007 12:17 PM
Posted on January 8, 2007 12:17
Sinister Greg, do you yourself actually think the Kyoto emissions targets are achievable?
I don’t know, we haven’t even tried so far.
Posted by Greg | January 8, 2007 1:00 PM
Posted on January 8, 2007 13:00
Sinister Greg, that is a cop out. Take a look at the emissions reductions required, think about it seriously, and come back with an answer. Or, take the word of commenters here or on sensible “progressive” sites (eg, crawlacrosstheocean), and acknowledge that it is not possible for Canada to meet the emissions requirements.
Posted by MarkCh | January 8, 2007 1:42 PM
Posted on January 8, 2007 13:42
Sinister Greg, that is a cop out.
Let me be serious for just a second. I am no expert. I really don’t know if we can or can’t reach the targets. What I do know is we won’t even have a chance to reach them if we continue to do nothing to reach them (and pointing out the Liberals did nothing to reach them is not doing anything to reach them).
Posted by Greg | January 8, 2007 2:30 PM
Posted on January 8, 2007 14:30
Greg,
care to offer your opinion as to what will happen to the Earth’s climate (having regard to the fact that we give only 3% of the world’s emissions) if we meet or even widely exceed our targets?
Even if we shut down our economy completely, it would make no material difference. Recognition of this true and obvious fact would render this debate meaningless.
Yet we continue debating about a small fraction of a small fraction of output as if the World’s climate hangs in the balance.
Imagine this debate in real vs. rhetorical terms: “you don’t care about the climate - your plan only reduces world output by .001%, whereas our policy reduces it by .0011%.”
While China and Brazil et al churn out 97.00%.
We are engaged in a massively hyped debate over something that, mathematically, scientifically and logically speaking, we Canadians cannot control.
Posted by Chester | January 8, 2007 10:01 PM
Posted on January 8, 2007 22:01