Hell of a way to introduce yourself to a forum, though, eh? The asylum is getting crowded.I have to be honest here, but I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.
Senate kill climate bill
- Thread starter Cobalt_Kid
- Start date
It is NOT an issue.......the Bill was simply a political ploy, and the Senate was completely within its rights to dump it........as for Five Paradox's assertion that they should have heard expert opinion first....anyone with a functioning intellect could see the bill was simply not on......
The system is working as it should.
How irresponsible was the Bill?
CBC News - Politics - The inconvenient truth about the climate change bill
The Liberals and NDP keep reminding me why I vote Conservative..........
That is some funny sh*t Colpy.
....but....but....it's a story from the Communist CBC, how could it be true.
I had no idea we were using the horse and buggy in 1990, rehtoric from the party of can't, won't, shouldn't, couldn't etc etc etc.:roll:
I guess lil Steve likes the senate afterall.
What perhaps is being lost in this debate, though, is what exactly this vote by Conservative senators meant.
The principle of Bill C-311 was that the Government of Canada should seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The particulars of the bill were the specific targets set for 2020, and 2050. The vote on second reading is a vote on the principle of a bill, and the particulars of the bill are debated and set at a later time, in the committee and report stages, and at third reading. This is identical to the process used in the House of Commons. What the Conservatives voted down was the principle of the bill--that is, that the Government should be in the business of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is an unfortunate admission, on the part of the Tories.
The principle of Bill C-311 was that the Government of Canada should seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The particulars of the bill were the specific targets set for 2020, and 2050. The vote on second reading is a vote on the principle of a bill, and the particulars of the bill are debated and set at a later time, in the committee and report stages, and at third reading. This is identical to the process used in the House of Commons. What the Conservatives voted down was the principle of the bill--that is, that the Government should be in the business of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is an unfortunate admission, on the part of the Tories.
Well, even the Communist Broadcasting Centre has enough brains to figure out this Bill was crap.........
I don't believe we were using the horse and buggy in 1990.........but the bill demands a reduction to GHG emissions 25% lower than 1990 levels.
And the bloody gall of the Liberals crying "foul" after going against Parliamentary tradition and whipping a Private Members' Bill just a few short weeks ago..........to say nothing of presiding over gargantuan increases in GHG emissions after signing the Kyoto Accord.......
Simply put, that tradition does not apply in this case........
This Bill was obviously totally lacking in any principle...Full Stop.
It was simply a political ploy, and the Senators were completely correct in dumping it.
There is a huge contrast in magnitude, Colpy, in comparing whipping a vote on a private member's bill in the House of Commons (and a few years of free votes does not a "tradition" make), to the Upper House defeating the fifth piece of Commons legislation in seventy years.
The Conservative senators essentially declared that Government has no business legislating to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If they agreed with the principle, then they would have passed the bill at second reading, and then used the committee and report stages to amend the targets to something more reasonable.
You can expect me to bring this quote up again in the future.
That's not a tradition, that's the actual legislative process.
The Conservative senators essentially declared that Government has no business legislating to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If they agreed with the principle, then they would have passed the bill at second reading, and then used the committee and report stages to amend the targets to something more reasonable.
You can expect me to bring this quote up again in the future.
Fair enough.......
But you don't think the Conservatives would ever stoop to using a political ploy, do you?????
Perish the thought.
The CBC is only a commie outfit when the story dosen't jive with you.
Not sure why you think that a drop in GHG emmissions is so imposible. I did in my own house, in fact at most times I'm right off the grid.
It has nothing to do with "can" it be done it's should it be done and this government isn't about "can" it's the exact opposite.
Plus the cons won't do anything that disrupts what is going on at basecamp in Alberta.
As much as I hate to admit it but China is making huge leaps in green tech and they not us will reap the rewards of it.
Unfortunately when is comes to the effects of climate change it will be to late, but who cares, you'll be dead by the time Florida is gone.
Where btw was I defending those goof ball Liberals when it comes to their history on the enviroment?
Liberals are the party of can but don't.
I was simply making a separate point about the Liberals, that was not aimed at you.
If these guys were serious about lowering GHG emissions there are ways to do it.
Passing blatantly political bills is not the way......completely unrealistic targets are not the way........giant windmill projects are not the way........florescent bulbs that give my wife blinding migraines are not the way.
BTW, sincere kudos to you for getting off the grid........but to be frank, I doubt you are the powerhouse of Canadian industry.......in fact, the financial backbone of our interventionist society is that "basecamp" in Alberta.......
I am a complete GW skeptic........and even if you reduced Canada's GHG emissions by the entire 40+% required.......that would amount to less than 1% of global emissions.......
I don't think it's unrealistic at all.....I'm not about "can't."
I'm not the backbone, but I still did it. If I "can".......
The basecamp is the financial backbone because we want it to be, not because it has to be.
China and green tech.
I know you are a skeptic even though the evidence is all there. AGW has become a political issue and a right versus left topic even though that has nothing at all to do with the real science and blatant facts. Everything spewed out by the denial machine has been debunked over and over again and as new studies are published the evidence gets stronger and stronger.
Canada reducing it's overall carbon emmisions won't save the planet, it will have to be a global effort.
Also let's not forget that besides reducing carbon we also reduce other harmful agents floating around in the atmosphere and the air we breathe.
Cancelling this bill now allows us to manifest destiny the **** out of the Arctic without worrying about keeping environmental standards. The additional C02 up there should help remove some of that pesky snow getting in the way of our resources. I usually recommend with a dash of jet exhaust paid for by us slave taxpayers.
What, a committee with majority Coalition partners??
No, they needed to kill it now.
Please go to post number 24 and read the quote.........
We could have achieved the targets....if you don't mind freezing in the dark.
The Bill was a political ploy, an attempt to either create a tempest among the GW morons.....(where it has succeeded) or to tie the government to wildly unrealistic cutbacks...........
You mean when you trotted out that flawed piece of garbage article you got from the government owned media outlet?
The basic flaw in that article is so transparent it's shocking you didn't notice it....or is it?
Seems the Canadian Brainwashing Corperation succeeded.;-):lol:
Your opinion. I don't think whiny gun owners should be appeased either. Doesn't mean it's not an issue.
More opinion on what the bill is, and I never said they weren't within their rights, did I?
They should have.
How so? Germany has met their obligations to the UNFCC, and they haven't crippled their economy. In fact they are supporting lagging economies at the same time.
Anyone with a functioning intellect should be able to see that the devil is in the details. The details of this bill were to force the government of Canada to live up to it's obligations, and to present detailed plans as to how they would implement them, including the efficacy of the policies. There is such a thing as smart legislation, again something someone with a functioning intellect should be able to comprehend...so what's your excuse?
Ahh, so it's good reporting as long as it fits your ideology. So noted.
The Ford Model T got better fuel economy than the average of the entire fleet of 2008 cars and trucks in the USA.
Technology is a marvelous thing, and despite what you may have heard from the luddites out there, it actually creates jobs when we invest in new technology. Other nations have figured this out.
