Tories fail in last-ditch bid to kill opposition Kyoto bill

marygaspe

Electoral Member
Jan 19, 2007
670
11
18
75





OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservative government lost a last effort to kill a Liberal bill that would require it to respect Canada's Kyoto commitments.
With the controversial bill up for a vote today, the Tories appealed to the Speaker of the House of Commons for the third time in less than a year to have Bill C-288 declared invalid. The Tories argued that the bill - which is supported by all opposition parties and is expected to pass easily - would force the government to spend money against its will.
But Speaker Peter Milliken cited his two previous rulings that the bill contains no specific spending measures, and added that he cannot speculate on what financial impact the bill could potentially have.
He said - again repeating his past rulings - that the Commons can vote later on any related money provisions as they're introduced.
"(The government) presents no new arguments but instead comes perilously close to an appeal of the chair's decision," Milliken said.
Such an appeal is specifically prohibited by parliamentary procedures.
He said the government's rationale for declaring the bill out of order was "not persuasive then, and is no more persuasive now."
The bill gives the government 60 days to table a detailed plan for reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Kyoto targets. It also compels the government to set fines or jail terms for businesses and industries that over-pollute.
The government calls those targets - a six per cent drop from 1990 levels - unattainable and dangerous to the economy.
One Tory suggested the minority government might simply ignore the bill if it becomes law.
"It's just a mischief bill," said Mark Warawa, parliamentary secretary to the environment minister.
"It shows what the Liberals have always done: just empty rhetoric, empty bills that won't actually achieve anything.
"We're not going back to that. This government is moving forward with real concrete action to clean up the environment."
One government official suggested that if the opposition is unhappy with their law being ignored, they can bring down the government and trigger an election.
Several constitutional experts have said the Tories have no choice but to respect the laws passed in the Parliament of Canada.
But the government official issued a challenge to Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez - the author of Bill C-288:
"He should put his money where his mouth is," said the official, who asked to remain anonymous.
"(Let him) table a non-confidence motion."
The Liberals waded cautiously into the electoral sabre-rattling when asked if they might table a non-confidence motion, depending on the fate of C-288.
"We're not there yet. We'll see," said the Liberals' deputy leader, Michael Ignatieff.
"It's altogether possible. I'm not ruling anything out."
The Tories have announced that they will spend $1.5 billion to support provincial green initiatives, and have also offered tax credits for public transit users and created renewable fuels initiatives.
This after they killed a host of pro-Kyoto initiatives created by the previous Liberal government - which failed to halt a steep climb in carbon emissions.


Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press
 

karra

Ranter
Jan 3, 2006
158
3
18
here, there, and everywher
It may be interesting, but it is also typical that the Lieberal Party du Canukistan would send billions of our buckaroos off shore to countries that have not signed for obvious and blatant reasons too. . . .

One Tory suggested the minority government might simply ignore the bill if it becomes law. "It's just a mischief bill," said Mark Warawa, parliamentary secretary to the environment minister. "It shows what the Liberals have always done: just empty rhetoric, empty bills that won't actually achieve anything. "We're not going back to that. This government is moving forward with real concrete action to clean up the environment."

One government official suggested that if the opposition is unhappy with their law being ignored, they can bring down the government and trigger an election.
Ed Zachary - let 'em fill their boots if they're so confident this incredible crock of spoor is something the taxpayers want to support by sending billions of their hard earned to locales such as China, Russia and India - of course, these tax dollars would be over and above what we are currently paying - so, add another 20 - 50% onto your year end tax bill and tell us all how you would and will survive as you do your duty every week or two by putting your recycling box out for collection.

Really!!! I ask - how stupid can the lemmings/sheep/leftards et al be. . . .
 

RUEZ

Nominee Member
Feb 12, 2007
96
2
8
PG
I'll be curious to see how they expect the Conservatives to enforce Kyoto, when the Liberals couldn't, or wouldn't do it themselves. Bye bye hot economy.:wave:
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I'll be curious to see how they expect the Conservatives to enforce Kyoto, when the Liberals couldn't, or wouldn't do it themselves. Bye bye hot economy.:wave:
It would be vapourized is more like it!!!

I love recessions, I could lay off my guys, I could get a new job flippin burgers at MicyD's, I can turn my house over to the bank, hey lets go for it!!!

Bunch a asshats if you ask me. The Liberal party is willing to try and sell Canada do the river for green votes, what a group of assholes!!!
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
For the umpteenth time allready, Kyoto doesn't necessitate sending money off-shore, that's only one of the programs that was set up to help lazy nations and pay developing nations to be more green. If the Conservatives are dumb enough to try that route (I suspect they're not) they deserve the scorn of all Canadians. My advice, put the1% GST back in effect, inform big polluters(I mean the ones with the dirtiest technology) that they will help pay the costs, and clean up the freaking smoke stacks. They are the ones boasting about cleaning up pollution here, two birds with one stone. Put up or shut up.
 

RUEZ

Nominee Member
Feb 12, 2007
96
2
8
PG
CDNBear said:
I love recessions, I could lay off my guys, I could get a new job flippin burgers at MicyD's, I can turn my house over to the bank, hey lets go for it!!!
You and me both, there's nothing like having a job where you can take home the food that the customers don't want at the end of the night.:thumbup:
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
That's not the new big issue ton!!!

The private members bill, will force (if the Tory's enforce it)the government to pretty much halt a lot of industry. Coal stations in Ont. Tarsands in Alberta. These are major catastrophies to the economy!!!

They further added a financial penalty or imprisonment to the bill, to assist in enforcement!!! Do you know what that resembles!!!??? Eco fascism, yep that's right I said it, I coined it now(you can use it though, I like you). The Libs will (try to) ruin the country to get green votes.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
You and me both, there's nothing like having a job where you can take home the food that the customers don't want at the end of the night.:thumbup:
I'll keep my eyes on the garbage cans to, although I'll likely let the rest of us blue collar boobs snatch the odd stiff fry. But the day old Mcnuggets are all mine dammit!!!
 

karra

Ranter
Jan 3, 2006
158
3
18
here, there, and everywher
My advice, put the1% GST back in effect, inform big polluters(I mean the ones with the dirtiest technology) that they will help pay the costs, and clean up the freaking smoke stacks. They are the ones boasting about cleaning up pollution here, two birds with one stone. Put up or shut up.
And where would they be located per chance? Wouldn't and couldn't possibly be Russia, China, India could it?

Or, are you talking about Canada/America/Mexico aka NAFTA. . . .
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
It looks to me like the Liberals are forcing the Conservatives, with the support of the House, to take action. I don't want to see things get out of hand, I'm sure there are some who will be wanting crazy legislation, but that won't be helpful. Slow and steady, or maybe slow and progressive.

I'm reading Bill C-288 right now, and the text from the Kyoto Protocol. What the bill calls for is:
>within 60 days the Minister will prepare a climate change plan, and shall do so every year.
>This includes what the measures are expected to achieve
>Fines will be levied, and there is sections which call for summary convictions for failure to comply

I know this sounds bad, but, no where does it say that Canada has to axe crazy amounts, only make the obligations we said we would. All along now the Government has said the Liberals did nothing to reduce emissions, and paid lip service only to our commitment. Heres their chance to show it can be done. I'm not saying it should be drastic, maybe something that snowballs. If the Liberals push for more, they can eat donkey dung. I doubt also that the Liberals are dumb enough to try to bankrupt business, but time will tell ehh?

Really what I draw from the bill is that it requires the Government to table initiaives every year, and evaluate them on a yearly basis. This is certainly better than sitting back giving a half-hearted attempt.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
And where would they be located per chance? Wouldn't and couldn't possibly be Russia, China, India could it?

Or, are you talking about Canada/America/Mexico aka NAFTA. . . .

You mean the big polluters? No doubt China and India are big polluters. The big difference is the efficiency of technology being used. "Developing" nations are using cleaner technology, on the backs of European carbon credits, to the tune of $20 Billion last year. The vehicle emission standards are higher there. They are using newer technology. Only difference is they have a population many times larger than ours. Maybe you prefer them to live in straw or bamboo huts while we belch whatever we want out of our industrial/automobile tail pipes.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63



Canada's Kyoto Plan: An Overview of "Project Green



Alexandria Pike*
On April 14, 2005, the federal government unveiled its plan for meeting Canada's Kyoto obligations. The "Project Green" plan proposes a range of measures to achieve Canada's target of 6% greenhouse gas ("GHG") emission reductions below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The plan admits that the original reduction target (240 megatonnes annually) was inaccurate and it is now estimated that Canada must reduce its GHG emissions by approximately 270 megatonnes annually in 2008 — 2012 to meet its Kyoto commitment.
One of the central platforms of the Project Green plan is the emission reductions of large final emitters ("LFEs") including mining, oil and gas and thermal electricity industries. The plan has been criticized for requiring only 45 megatonnes of annual reductions (reduced from the 2002 target of 55 megatonnes annually) from LFEs as those industries contribute almost 50% of Canada's GHG emissions. LFEs may achieve their reduction target by implementing technology to reduce emissions in their facilities, purchasing reductions from other LFEs or purchasing domestic and international emission credits. In addition, investments in technological development (through the new Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund) will be accepted as a compliance measure to a maximum limit of 9 megatonnes.
While the LFE system has not yet been developed (the regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 ("CEPA") is currently being prepared), the plan provides a few details: (a) the LFE system will involve the establishment of regulatory requirements under Part 5 of CEPA instead of the voluntary covenant and regulatory backstop system considered in 2002; (b) new and upgraded facilities will be assessed on a "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable" basis; (c) fixed process emissions (those created by chemical reactions in production, not fuel combustion) will have a 0% reduction target; and (d) the government has confirmed its earlier commitment that LEEs will pay no more than $15 per tonne CO2 equivalent to achieve compliance.1
With light-duty passenger cars and trucks accounting for over 12% of Canada's GHG emissions, the government has focused particular attention on emissions reductions from the auto industry. The Project Green plan includes a voluntary commitment on the part of auto manufacturers to reduce GHG emissions by 5.3 megatonnes by 2010. This voluntary arrangement was undertaken (instead of imposing a regulatory requirement) as the emissions relate to the manufacturers' products, not processes. It is not clear to what extent this commitment will lead to technological improvements and consumer incentives to reduce vehicle emissions. Reduction of vehicle GHG emissions is also to be achieved through the federal government's New Deal for Cities and Communities which is intended to encourage sustainable infrastructure improvements, particularly through the development of public transit. The Project Green plan refers to the New Deal's proposed gas tax transfer to municipalities for such infrastructure spending but no estimate is provided for GHG reductions from this program.
Renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy, biomass and tidal power are considered to be an important component of Canada's Kyoto compliance plan. The plan details the enhancement of the Wind Power Production Incentive and the creation of the Renewable Power Production Incentive as well as tax incentives for capital investments in generation equipment.2 Canada's agricultural lands and forests will also play a role in emissions reductions as the development and efficiency of these "carbon sinks" would be encouraged through the development of an emissions credit system and federal ecological protection programs. The agricultural sink is estimated at a reduction equivalent of 10 megatonnes annually and the forest sink is thought to be up to 20 megatonnes.
Emissions reductions from government activities and the efforts of individual Canadians are estimated to achieve a total reduction of 6 megatonnes and existing programs are estimated to achieve 40 megatonnes annually. Even when existing reduction programs, renewable energy and sequestration programs and LFE obligations are combined, Canada will have made only marginal progress in achieving its reduction obligations. This leads to the most significant element of the Project Green plan: the "Climate Fund". This entity is effectively a purchasing agent of the federal government with over $1 billion to spend on domestic and international offset credits. Canadians with substantial emissions reductions will apply to the federal Ministry of Environment for recognized credits and may then be funded by the Climate Fund. Additional funding opportunities may also be available for such reduction projects from the Partnership Fund: an enhanced federal-provincial-territorial funding entity with $2 to $3 billion to invest in technologies and infrastructure development of benefit to key sectors of the economy.
International offset credits will have to satisfy: (1) Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism or Joint Implementation requirements, (2) represent real and verified reductions and (3) benefit Canada's sustainability interests (by applying Canadian technology or advancing trade, competitiveness or international development interests). It is predicted that the Climate Fund will achieve emissions reductions in the magnitude of 75 to 115 megatonnes annually while the Partnership Fund is expected to contribute 55 to 85 megatonnes of emissions reductions annually. Commentators have noted that no other government has made such a significant commitment to climate change as Canada has in proposing the Climate Fund.
The Project Green plan sets Canada's course for Kyoto obligations in the context of a transformed and sustainable economy. In addition to reduced GHG emissions, resource productivity is to be enhanced, Canadian technologies developed and lifestyles improved as our cities become more pleasant. Such a grand vision requires significant citizen acceptance and commitment but the government has already identified success in the public arena. The "One-Tonne Challenge", once viewed as a desperate attempt to augment emissions reductions, has proven to be successful in raising awareness and interest in climate change. Whether the Project Green plan will be successfully implemented and can achieve Canada's Kyoto obligations, as well as the broader environmental and economic goals, remains to be seen.
* Alexandria Pike is a partner at Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, (416) 367-6989, apike@dwpv.com.
1 The plan estimates a cost to the federal government of $l0 per tonne of reductions (CO2 equivalent).
2 The WPPI is to receive an investment of $200 million over 5 years with a target of 4000 megawatt generating capacity. The RPPI has a target of up to 1500 megawatts through an investment of $97 million over 5 years.
 

fatbasturd

Electoral Member
Feb 12, 2007
179
2
18
I'm a tree hugger. I like Kyoto. Got to start some where.
KYOTO.. you have to scream it out loud when you are hugging the afore mentioned tree....or you will not bond with it on an emotional level...just in case you didn't know the rules.:evil3:
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Canada's Kyoto Plan: An Overview of "Project Green


Alexandria Pike*
On April 14, 2005, the federal government unveiled its plan for meeting Canada's Kyoto obligations. The "Project Green" plan proposes a range of measures to achieve Canada's target of 6% greenhouse gas ("GHG") emission reductions below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The plan admits that the original reduction target (240 megatonnes annually) was inaccurate and it is now estimated that Canada must reduce its GHG emissions by approximately 270 megatonnes annually in 2008 — 2012 to meet its Kyoto commitment.
One of the central platforms of the Project Green plan is the emission reductions of large final emitters ("LFEs") including mining, oil and gas and thermal electricity industries. The plan has been criticized for requiring only 45 megatonnes of annual reductions (reduced from the 2002 target of 55 megatonnes annually) from LFEs as those industries contribute almost 50% of Canada's GHG emissions. LFEs may achieve their reduction target by implementing technology to reduce emissions in their facilities, purchasing reductions from other LFEs or purchasing domestic and international emission credits. In addition, investments in technological development (through the new Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund) will be accepted as a compliance measure to a maximum limit of 9 megatonnes.
While the LFE system has not yet been developed (the regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 ("CEPA") is currently being prepared), the plan provides a few details: (a) the LFE system will involve the establishment of regulatory requirements under Part 5 of CEPA instead of the voluntary covenant and regulatory backstop system considered in 2002; (b) new and upgraded facilities will be assessed on a "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable" basis; (c) fixed process emissions (those created by chemical reactions in production, not fuel combustion) will have a 0% reduction target; and (d) the government has confirmed its earlier commitment that LEEs will pay no more than $15 per tonne CO2 equivalent to achieve compliance.1
With light-duty passenger cars and trucks accounting for over 12% of Canada's GHG emissions, the government has focused particular attention on emissions reductions from the auto industry. The Project Green plan includes a voluntary commitment on the part of auto manufacturers to reduce GHG emissions by 5.3 megatonnes by 2010. This voluntary arrangement was undertaken (instead of imposing a regulatory requirement) as the emissions relate to the manufacturers' products, not processes. It is not clear to what extent this commitment will lead to technological improvements and consumer incentives to reduce vehicle emissions. Reduction of vehicle GHG emissions is also to be achieved through the federal government's New Deal for Cities and Communities which is intended to encourage sustainable infrastructure improvements, particularly through the development of public transit. The Project Green plan refers to the New Deal's proposed gas tax transfer to municipalities for such infrastructure spending but no estimate is provided for GHG reductions from this program.
Renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy, biomass and tidal power are considered to be an important component of Canada's Kyoto compliance plan. The plan details the enhancement of the Wind Power Production Incentive and the creation of the Renewable Power Production Incentive as well as tax incentives for capital investments in generation equipment.2 Canada's agricultural lands and forests will also play a role in emissions reductions as the development and efficiency of these "carbon sinks" would be encouraged through the development of an emissions credit system and federal ecological protection programs. The agricultural sink is estimated at a reduction equivalent of 10 megatonnes annually and the forest sink is thought to be up to 20 megatonnes.
Emissions reductions from government activities and the efforts of individual Canadians are estimated to achieve a total reduction of 6 megatonnes and existing programs are estimated to achieve 40 megatonnes annually. Even when existing reduction programs, renewable energy and sequestration programs and LFE obligations are combined, Canada will have made only marginal progress in achieving its reduction obligations. This leads to the most significant element of the Project Green plan: the "Climate Fund". This entity is effectively a purchasing agent of the federal government with over $1 billion to spend on domestic and international offset credits. Canadians with substantial emissions reductions will apply to the federal Ministry of Environment for recognized credits and may then be funded by the Climate Fund. Additional funding opportunities may also be available for such reduction projects from the Partnership Fund: an enhanced federal-provincial-territorial funding entity with $2 to $3 billion to invest in technologies and infrastructure development of benefit to key sectors of the economy.
International offset credits will have to satisfy: (1) Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism or Joint Implementation requirements, (2) represent real and verified reductions and (3) benefit Canada's sustainability interests (by applying Canadian technology or advancing trade, competitiveness or international development interests). It is predicted that the Climate Fund will achieve emissions reductions in the magnitude of 75 to 115 megatonnes annually while the Partnership Fund is expected to contribute 55 to 85 megatonnes of emissions reductions annually. Commentators have noted that no other government has made such a significant commitment to climate change as Canada has in proposing the Climate Fund.
The Project Green plan sets Canada's course for Kyoto obligations in the context of a transformed and sustainable economy. In addition to reduced GHG emissions, resource productivity is to be enhanced, Canadian technologies developed and lifestyles improved as our cities become more pleasant. Such a grand vision requires significant citizen acceptance and commitment but the government has already identified success in the public arena. The "One-Tonne Challenge", once viewed as a desperate attempt to augment emissions reductions, has proven to be successful in raising awareness and interest in climate change. Whether the Project Green plan will be successfully implemented and can achieve Canada's Kyoto obligations, as well as the broader environmental and economic goals, remains to be seen.
* Alexandria Pike is a partner at Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, (416) 367-6989, apike@dwpv.com.
1 The plan estimates a cost to the federal government of $l0 per tonne of reductions (CO2 equivalent).
2 The WPPI is to receive an investment of $200 million over 5 years with a target of 4000 megawatt generating capacity. The RPPI has a target of up to 1500 megawatts through an investment of $97 million over 5 years.

For what it's worth, this was a Liberal exercise, Harper and the Conservacrits fought tooth and nail against Kyoto in any form. Apparently, now, the Conservacrits think green is fashionable and can't wait to jump in with both feet.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
It would be vapourized is more like it!!!

I love recessions, I could lay off my guys, I could get a new job flippin burgers at MicyD's, I can turn my house over to the bank, hey lets go for it!!!

Bunch a asshats if you ask me. The Liberal party is willing to try and sell Canada do the river for green votes, what a group of assholes!!!

Bear it'll be good for metal fabricators, you should get into windgenerator masts and blades. When we go green it will be good for guys like you and me what's a mechanic.:wave:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Canada's Kyoto Plan: An Overview of "Project Green


Alexandria Pike*
On April 14, 2005, the federal government unveiled its plan for meeting Canada's Kyoto obligations. The "Project Green" plan proposes a range of measures to achieve Canada's target of 6% greenhouse gas ("GHG") emission reductions below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The plan admits that the original reduction target (240 megatonnes annually) was inaccurate and it is now estimated that Canada must reduce its GHG emissions by approximately 270 megatonnes annually in 2008 — 2012 to meet its Kyoto commitment.
One of the central platforms of the Project Green plan is the emission reductions of large final emitters ("LFEs") including mining, oil and gas and thermal electricity industries. The plan has been criticized for requiring only 45 megatonnes of annual reductions (reduced from the 2002 target of 55 megatonnes annually) from LFEs as those industries contribute almost 50% of Canada's GHG emissions. LFEs may achieve their reduction target by implementing technology to reduce emissions in their facilities, purchasing reductions from other LFEs or purchasing domestic and international emission credits. In addition, investments in technological development (through the new Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund) will be accepted as a compliance measure to a maximum limit of 9 megatonnes.
While the LFE system has not yet been developed (the regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 ("CEPA") is currently being prepared), the plan provides a few details: (a) the LFE system will involve the establishment of regulatory requirements under Part 5 of CEPA instead of the voluntary covenant and regulatory backstop system considered in 2002; (b) new and upgraded facilities will be assessed on a "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable" basis; (c) fixed process emissions (those created by chemical reactions in production, not fuel combustion) will have a 0% reduction target; and (d) the government has confirmed its earlier commitment that LEEs will pay no more than $15 per tonne CO2 equivalent to achieve compliance.1
With light-duty passenger cars and trucks accounting for over 12% of Canada's GHG emissions, the government has focused particular attention on emissions reductions from the auto industry. The Project Green plan includes a voluntary commitment on the part of auto manufacturers to reduce GHG emissions by 5.3 megatonnes by 2010. This voluntary arrangement was undertaken (instead of imposing a regulatory requirement) as the emissions relate to the manufacturers' products, not processes. It is not clear to what extent this commitment will lead to technological improvements and consumer incentives to reduce vehicle emissions. Reduction of vehicle GHG emissions is also to be achieved through the federal government's New Deal for Cities and Communities which is intended to encourage sustainable infrastructure improvements, particularly through the development of public transit. The Project Green plan refers to the New Deal's proposed gas tax transfer to municipalities for such infrastructure spending but no estimate is provided for GHG reductions from this program.
Renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy, biomass and tidal power are considered to be an important component of Canada's Kyoto compliance plan. The plan details the enhancement of the Wind Power Production Incentive and the creation of the Renewable Power Production Incentive as well as tax incentives for capital investments in generation equipment.2 Canada's agricultural lands and forests will also play a role in emissions reductions as the development and efficiency of these "carbon sinks" would be encouraged through the development of an emissions credit system and federal ecological protection programs. The agricultural sink is estimated at a reduction equivalent of 10 megatonnes annually and the forest sink is thought to be up to 20 megatonnes.
Emissions reductions from government activities and the efforts of individual Canadians are estimated to achieve a total reduction of 6 megatonnes and existing programs are estimated to achieve 40 megatonnes annually. Even when existing reduction programs, renewable energy and sequestration programs and LFE obligations are combined, Canada will have made only marginal progress in achieving its reduction obligations. This leads to the most significant element of the Project Green plan: the "Climate Fund". This entity is effectively a purchasing agent of the federal government with over $1 billion to spend on domestic and international offset credits. Canadians with substantial emissions reductions will apply to the federal Ministry of Environment for recognized credits and may then be funded by the Climate Fund. Additional funding opportunities may also be available for such reduction projects from the Partnership Fund: an enhanced federal-provincial-territorial funding entity with $2 to $3 billion to invest in technologies and infrastructure development of benefit to key sectors of the economy.
International offset credits will have to satisfy: (1) Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism or Joint Implementation requirements, (2) represent real and verified reductions and (3) benefit Canada's sustainability interests (by applying Canadian technology or advancing trade, competitiveness or international development interests). It is predicted that the Climate Fund will achieve emissions reductions in the magnitude of 75 to 115 megatonnes annually while the Partnership Fund is expected to contribute 55 to 85 megatonnes of emissions reductions annually. Commentators have noted that no other government has made such a significant commitment to climate change as Canada has in proposing the Climate Fund.
The Project Green plan sets Canada's course for Kyoto obligations in the context of a transformed and sustainable economy. In addition to reduced GHG emissions, resource productivity is to be enhanced, Canadian technologies developed and lifestyles improved as our cities become more pleasant. Such a grand vision requires significant citizen acceptance and commitment but the government has already identified success in the public arena. The "One-Tonne Challenge", once viewed as a desperate attempt to augment emissions reductions, has proven to be successful in raising awareness and interest in climate change. Whether the Project Green plan will be successfully implemented and can achieve Canada's Kyoto obligations, as well as the broader environmental and economic goals, remains to be seen.
* Alexandria Pike is a partner at Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, (416) 367-6989, apike@dwpv.com.
1 The plan estimates a cost to the federal government of $l0 per tonne of reductions (CO2 equivalent).
2 The WPPI is to receive an investment of $200 million over 5 years with a target of 4000 megawatt generating capacity. The RPPI has a target of up to 1500 megawatts through an investment of $97 million over 5 years.

They have to use thier feet they ain't got any brains.:wave:
 

Fingertrouble

Electoral Member
Nov 8, 2006
150
1
18
55
Calgary
It looks to me like the Liberals are forcing the Conservatives, with the support of the House, to take action.

Funny.....all the years the Liberal'swere in power they signed on the dotted line for Kyoto, but they NEVER took any EFFECTIVE action. They didn't even really plan ahead for the implementation of Kyoto and now they are wanting action! What a bunch of thieving hypocrites!