Tories keep chugging along?

crit13

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
That is the very basis of my point, which seems to have been missed by you. Why did I come here? What have I been trying to say? As I said, "Your claims are unfounded and dubious at best."
Click to expand...

I can certainly understand that trying to gauge someones feelings through typing is difficult at best.

First of all, I'm not at all angry and secondly I never realized that questioning someones memory on a certain issue would ever be considered a personal attack.

From what I can tell, you are very good at playing mind games which I refuse to get into.

The point is that the US has done a better job at containg GHG emissions without signing onto Kyoto than the Liberal party which did sign onto Kyoto "is" the point. And is the only point for that matter.

Who cares if my percentages were off? The point is the Liberals said they would reduce GHG emmissions and then did the exact opposite for almost 10 years. They raised GHG emmissions much faster than George Bush's US of A.
And yet you claim that you defend their green plan.

Regarding fiscal imbalance, you seem to brush it off as a non existant problem, yet I have provided a link which supports the fact that all provinces within Canada say it's a huge problem. Should I believe you over the premiers of Canada?
The same goes with the health care fix? I'm not the one that claimed that our health care system was broken and needed to be fixed. It was claimed by the Liberal party. You can't have it both ways. You can't take credit for fixing something that was never broken.
Dubious and unfounded indeed.

I backed up all my claims with links and you respond with I'm being dubious.
 
Niflmir

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I brush off fiscal imbalance because I don't think its as big a problem in Canada as people make it out to be. If you wish to discuss this, let me know.

As for the USA and green house gas (GHG) emissions compared to Canada, conceded. We are terrible polluters in Canada, which is all the more justification for taking action on this isssue. As for Liberal party credibility on GHG emissions and Kyoto, 28% of the increase from 1990 to 2006 was due to the increase in fossil fuel exportation, they certainly are guilty of allowing that to increase without measure. However, the Kyoto protocol sets targets for the period of 2008-2012, so it is wrong to say that they failed on Kyoto. The Liberal had a strategy based on incentives to corporations, which is widely held to be insufficient, they also drafted the Green Plan in the hopes that it would lead to the Kyoto targets. However lame we judge that to be, they tried. We have already provided all the links for that information. The conservative party of Canada isn't even going to try to reach Kyoto targets, in fact the only target they have is to halve the 2003 levels by 2050, which is a little late. The NDP on the other hand, want to introduce mandatory measures. It is widely believed that these are the types of measures which have any chance of successfully reducing GHG emissions. 80% of GHG emissions in Canada comes from the reliance on fossil fuels for our energy needs, the NDP also want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, if they managed to halve our reliance on fossil fuels for energy, it would decrease our emissions to 88% of 1990 levels, which is 6% lower than the Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. The Green Party's platform is similar, and they want to achieve their targets without introducing new legislation. They are the only party that recognizes that we need to be able to adapt to the problems of climate change (floods, changes in ecology, etc.) and their policy reflects that. Going merely on the merits of policy platform in regards to the Kyoto targets, the ranking would go something like:

1. Green Party - Comprehensive, meant to reduce reliance on fossil fuels through actual fossil fuel levies and incentives for alternate fuel sources and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
2. New Democrat Party - Solely aims to reduce levels through fossil fuel levies and wind/solar incentives.
3. Liberal Party - Doesn't go far enough, relies solely on corporate incentives.
4. Conservative Party - Nonexistant.

If you were willing to vote solely based on likelihood to achieve Kyoto targets, the Green party would probably be the best choice. If we relax the Kyoto targets, and look for the most comprehensive plans, the ranking wouldn't change. The Conservative party's nonexistant would merely change to small corporate incentives and low personal targets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom