Canada on Wrong Side of Global Issues?

[Bar Sinister]

At a recent meeting of the Parkland institute Margaret Atwood strongly criticized the policies of the Harper government, calling for a "dictat-o-meter" to measure Canada's movement away from accountability in government. However, it was James Laxer's comment that seemed most critical of the current government, pointing out that "Canada is on the wrong side in almost every international issue." He then listed these issues as climate change, recognizing aboriginal rights, and killing deep oceans and river systems with toxic waste and tailings ponds among others.

Considering that for several decades Canada was often seen (at least by Canadians) as a global leader in many world issues I find these comments a little disturbing. Is it true that under the last few governments Canada has lost its way and now trails the rest of the world in terms of a social conscience?

Atwood launches assault on gov?t with razor-sharp wit

 

[Cliffy]

At a recent meeting of the Parkland institute Margaret Atwood strongly criticized the policies of the Harper government, calling for a "dictat-o-meter" to measure Canada's movement away from accountability in government. However, it was James Laxer's comment that seemed most critical of the current government, pointing out that "Canada is on the wrong side in almost every international issue." He then listed these issues as climate change, recognizing aboriginal rights, and killing deep oceans and river systems with toxic waste and tailings ponds among others.

Considering that for several decades Canada was often seen (at least by Canadians) as a global leader in many world issues I find these comments a little disturbing. Is it true that under the last few governments Canada has lost its way and now trails the rest of the world in terms of a social conscience?

Atwood launches assault on gov?t with razor-sharp wit

Canada lost its moral compass in a toxic waste dump. There is no way to maintain our lifestyle without subjugating and exploiting the third world. As long as we insist on our unsustainable ways, that subjugation and exploitation will infect our government because it its all about maintaining the status quo. All environmentalist and civil right advocates do not understand this basic concept. We have what we have on the oppressed backs of those and the environment they advocate for. The dichotomy of the situation is well hidden from the great unwashed but our politicians are well aware of what must be done to keep the disillusioned from rioting in the streets.

 

[earth_as_one]

Harper is a dangerous George Bush wannabe.

I agree that "Humans have a built-in capacity for helping other people, joining with them for common causes."

 

[Colpy]

At a recent meeting of the Parkland institute Margaret Atwood strongly criticized the policies of the Harper government, calling for a "dictat-o-meter" to measure Canada's movement away from accountability in government. However, it was James Laxer's comment that seemed most critical of the current government, pointing out that "Canada is on the wrong side in almost every international issue." He then listed these issues as climate change, recognizing aboriginal rights, and killing deep oceans and river systems with toxic waste and tailings ponds among others.

Considering that for several decades Canada was often seen (at least by Canadians) as a global leader in many world issues I find these comments a little disturbing. Is it true that under the last few governments Canada has lost its way and now trails the rest of the world in terms of a social conscience?

Atwood launches assault on gov?t with razor-sharp wit

Right!

“The tools for repression and control are multiplying very quickly. Our government: What happened to ‘open and accountable?’ … What happened to democracy?”

This garbage from the woman that did all in her power to prevent the launching of what she so sarcastically called "Fox News North",,,,,not even realizing that the new TV station had absolutely no connection with the US station.....

Here's a hint, Dumbass......democracy rests on a foundation of free speech, and the free expression of ideas.....not the supression of a media outlet because they might not subscribe to your ideal core "truths".

As for foreign policy, I am proud that Canada supports the ONLY liberal democracy in the ME, and I am proud that Canada has behaved like an adult, and fulfilled very well its international obligations in Afghanistan.

Global Warming policy is a farce.....the left tries to set goals that would destroy the Canadian economy, leaving as our only export shiploads of cash going to our enemies in China to buy up imaginary carbon credits...........this idiocy is exactly what I would expect from a leftist twit.

BTW, she can't write either.
​

 

[captain morgan]

Here's a hint, Dumbass......democracy rests on a foundation of free speech, and the free expression of ideas.....not the supression of a media outlet because they might not subscribe to your ideal core "truths".

​

Ironic in that it is/was the very same foundation of freedom of speech in which Atwood has based her entire adult life for a livelihood and recognition.

 

[Tonington]

Global Warming policy is a farce.....the left tries to set goals that would destroy the Canadian economy, leaving as our only export shiploads of cash going to our enemies in China to buy up imaginary carbon credits...........this idiocy is exactly what I would expect from a leftist twit.
​

And the right is inclined to conspiracy theories because they don't like the policies. Market mechanisms by the way used to be something that conservatives favoured over government regulation.

Your understanding of the policy alternatives is pretty shallow if you think carbon credits are the policy with the broadest support. And by the way, China is already spending more than any other nation building infrastructure to manufacture the energy infrastructure of the future. They don't require carbon credits either. It's an investment that will pay off. Conservatives can't seem to look that far into the future.

I already mentioned to you in another thread that Germany has been on track with their targets, and they haven't destroyed their economy. They are supporting the weakling economies in Europe as a matter of fact. Sweden has as well, they've reduced emissions 8% over 1990 levels while their economy has grown by almost 50%

Your parroting of fossil fuel propaganda is based on big lies.

 

[captain morgan]

And the right is inclined to conspiracy theories because they don't like the policies.

The UN appears to be changing their policies... Do they believe in the conspiracy?

 

[Tonington]

The UN appears to be changing their policies... Do they believe in the conspiracy?

Appears or are? I don't actually follow UN policy, so maybe you could say what the policy is changing from and to....

 

[captain morgan]

Appears to be changing in the face of the global reaction to their policy suggestions/demands.

 

[Colpy]

And the right is inclined to conspiracy theories because they don't like the policies. Market mechanisms by the way used to be something that conservatives favoured over government regulation.

Your understanding of the policy alternatives is pretty shallow if you think carbon credits are the policy with the broadest support. And by the way, China is already spending more than any other nation building infrastructure to manufacture the energy infrastructure of the future. They don't require carbon credits either. It's an investment that will pay off. Conservatives can't seem to look that far into the future.

I already mentioned to you in another thread that Germany has been on track with their targets, and they haven't destroyed their economy. They are supporting the weakling economies in Europe as a matter of fact. Sweden has as well, they've reduced emissions 8% over 1990 levels while their economy has grown by almost 50%

Your parroting of fossil fuel propaganda is based on big lies.

First of all, I don't think stupidity is a conspiracy theory.........I think it is an epidemic.

Secondly, this is not Germany or Sweden.............both of which have a much greater population density than us, and both of which probably started trying to cut emissions early, and both of which do not have an economy based largely on the production of fossil fuels.

Third.......although it seems the world climate is changing, I have seen nothing to convince me that mankind has the slightest thing to do with it.......what I have seen is the suppression of thought that does not fit the environmentalist model......and that leaves me even more skeptical.

Fourth, China is building a dirty coal-fired generating station every month.......80% of her power is generated with coal.......(as of 2006)

Fifth.....buying and selling non-existent commodities is not something I pretend to understand..........nor something I will ever support.

 

[Tonington]

So what is the actual policy change?

 

[captain morgan]

So what is the actual policy change?

The focal point has changed from pushing their agenda and marketing their position as aggressively as previously observed.

 

[Tonington]

First of all, I don't think stupidity is a conspiracy theory.........I think it is an epidemic.

You're right. Conservatives in North America have decided they know better than the experts. Far beyond simple stupidity.

Secondly, this is not Germany or Sweden.............both of which have a much greater population density than us, and both of which probably started trying to cut emissions early, and both of which do not have an economy based largely on the production of fossil fuels.

Canada's population is more than 80% urban, which is pretty much the same for Sweden. Sweden's economy is also a strong exporter of natural resources. Oh, and energy exports from Canada amount to just 2.9% of our GDP. We're not so different. You are right that they started before us though. In any event, reducing carbon content in economies is not the killer you make it out to be.

Third.......although it seems the world climate is changing, I have seen nothing to convince me that mankind has the slightest thing to do with it.

Ahh, and why should that matter? The majority of climate scientists who have studied and make this their life work have. Do you think we should base our foreign policy on the ill-informed opinions of folks like Jbee? And where have you actually looked?

This is along the same lines as the epidemic...who cares what your mechanic thinks about dental surgery? Policy should be formed based on risk assessments from experts, not Joe Blow who has an opinion about something...

Fourth, China is building a dirty coal-fired generating station every month.......80% of her power is generated with coal.......(as of 2006)

So? Do you think we should emulate China? I brought China up because they are eating our lunch. There is huge waste in our economy, with energy being inefficiently used all over the place. There's lots of jobs and growth that China is ensuring will be sourced from...China. Standing on the sidelines now means opportunity missed for later.

Fifth.....buying and selling non-existent commodities is not something I pretend to understand..........nor something I will ever support.

Are all your opinions on energy issues based on straw men like this one? The issue is a market externality, and there are many different ways to address such shortcomings, despite your reliance on talking points about carbon credits to china...

The focal point has changed from pushing their agenda and marketing their position as aggressively as previously observed.

So you have the from part but not the to part...

Politicspeak. Just admit you don't know what the actual change is and you made it all up.

 

[Colpy]

Let me say this about "The Experts".......

No, on second thought, let Mark Steyn say it much better than I ever could......

In 1968, in his best-selling book The Population Bomb, scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
In 1972, in their influential landmark study The Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead, and gas by 1993.
In 1977, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States incredible as it may seem, confidently predicted that "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."
Now, in 2002, with enough oil for a century and a half, the planet awash in cut-price minerals, and less global famine, starvation and malnutrition than ever before, the end of the world has had to be rescheduled. The latest estimated time of arrival for the apocalypse is 2032. Last week, the United Nations Global Environmental Outlook predicted "the destruction of 70% of the natural world in 30 years, mass extinction of species, and the collapse of human society in many countries ... More than half the world will be afflicted by water shortages, with 95% of people in the Middle East with severe problems ... 25% of all species of mammals and 10% of birds will be extinct ..." Etc., etc., for 450 pages. But let's cut to the chase: As The Guardian's headline writer put it, "Unless We Change Our Ways, The World Faces Disaster."

SteynOnline - THE END IS EVEN NIGHER!

 

[captain morgan]

So you have the from part but not the to part...

Politicspeak. Just admit you don't know what the actual change is and you made it all up.

I don't know what the "to" part is.. The UN hasn't kept me in the loop on the memo's.

Great comment about political speak, the irony being that the UN is utterly dependent on that and has a incidental dependency on actual proof on the AGW issue.

Try again

 

[Tonington]

Let me say this about "The Experts".......

No, on second thought, let Mark Steyn say it much better than I ever could......

SteynOnline - THE END IS EVEN NIGHER!

I never said experts were perfect. In fact this is a great example of why reviews like the IPCC exist. The IPCC isn't conducting science, it's reviewing the state of the science. Not one authors book, it's not one groups projection, it's a review of the entire field. They cite literally thousands of papers, not cherry picked examples like Steyn threw together from various fields.

Their opinion is still worth more on this subject than is yours or mine, because they have context.

Steyn spins a good web, but if you go to him for your science, then you're not going to learn very much...

I don't know what the "to" part is.. The UN hasn't kept me in the loop on the memo's.

So then you have no cause to say they are changing policy, if you can't even name what they are supposedly changing it to. Logic fail.

Try again.

 

[captain morgan]

Employing your own logic, you have no opportunity to suggest otherwise.

Good comment though, that is the very same thought process that has lead the UN in being abjectly ignored by the international community on this issue... You might expect the same.

 

[Tonington]

Employing your own logic, you have no opportunity to suggest otherwise.

I'm not the one suggesting anything, except that when you assert that someone's policy is apparently changing, you should at the very least be able to say what it's changing to, or show that there is a process in place to select new policies. Otherwise, how is it apparent that anything is changing?

 

[captain morgan]

Re-read post # 12. Identifying the apparent change in policy, strategy and marketing intensity is entirely valid.

Me thinks that you are challenging in such an obtuse fashion as it is an uncomfortable reality that is not supportive of your base position.

 

[earth_as_one]

You're right. Conservatives in North America have decided they know better than the experts. Far beyond simple stupidity.

Canada's population is more than 80% urban, which is pretty much the same for Sweden. Sweden's economy is also a strong exporter of natural resources. Oh, and energy exports from Canada amount to just 2.9% of our GDP. We're not so different. You are right that they started before us though. In any event, reducing carbon content in economies is not the killer you make it out to be.

Ahh, and why should that matter? The majority of climate scientists who have studied and make this their life work have. Do you think we should base our foreign policy on the ill-informed opinions of folks like Jbee? And where have you actually looked?

This is along the same lines as the epidemic...who cares what your mechanic thinks about dental surgery? Policy should be formed based on risk assessments from experts, not Joe Blow who has an opinion about something...

So? Do you think we should emulate China? I brought China up because they are eating our lunch. There is huge waste in our economy, with energy being inefficiently used all over the place. There's lots of jobs and growth that China is ensuring will be sourced from...China. Standing on the sidelines now means opportunity missed for later.

Are all your opinions on energy issues based on straw men like this one? The issue is a market externality, and there are many different ways to address such shortcomings, despite your reliance on talking points about carbon credits to china...



So you have the from part but not the to part...

Politicspeak. Just admit you don't know what the actual change is and you made it all up.

Canada can't and shouldn't compete with China. We should punch a big hole in the Rockies and increase substantially infrastructure required to move raw material to the West Coast. We are missing an opportunity to decrease our economic dependence on the US and Europe. I think Canada should hitch its wagon to China, India and other Asian countries which are the fastest growing consumer markets.

Canada's trade relations should hold China to tighter standards than we currently hold the US (international abductions, torture, unprovoked wars to seize control of Iraq's oil resources, various other war crimes and crimes against humanity...) Israel (international abductions, counterfeit Canadian passports, ethnic cleansing, various war crimes, serious crimes against humanity...), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Indonesia, The Phillipines...

All these nations have worse human rights problems than China. Both the US and Israel could get far more stern lectures about human rights than Harper gave China. Insulting the Chinese isn't in Canada's best interest and it makes you wonder which side Harper is really on.