Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, from what I understand the plan is to ramp up the efficiency of household appliances.

That's why the NDP was complaining that all this bill does is regulated "dishwashers" despite the fact that the NDP has been calling for such regulations for years
KPK





Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 527
Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6
votes: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quite frankly to get serious about energy efficiency you have to do more than make dishwashers more efficient. How about also removing regular light bulbs from the Canadian marketplace and allowing only energy efficient bulbs? Do you know how many people leave their lights on in rooms they are not using?
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're right, fortunatly the Clean Air Plan deals with much more than just that.

BTW; a certain country recently did pull incandecent bulbs off the market and made CFLs mandatory: Communist Cuba.

If the government made CFLs mandatory we'd never hear the end of the lefties complaining that poor people won't be able to afford CFLs....

Lastly, housing is a provincial matter so the feds can't really do much directly in relation to that.
KPK





Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 527
Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6
votes: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
You're right, fortunatly the Clean Air Plan deals with much more than just that.

BTW; a certain country recently did pull incandecent bulbs off the market and made CFLs mandatory: Communist Cuba.

If the government made CFLs mandatory we'd never hear the end of the lefties complaining that poor people won't be able to afford CFLs....

Lastly, housing is a provincial matter so the feds can't really do much directly in relation to that.


What about those lefties in Cuba? Are they complaining?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the last thing on most of their minds is light bulbs.. ;)
KPK





Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 527
Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6
votes: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyhooo..my point was that there is nothing "imaginative" in the clean air act. That is what joe public was looking for. Instead the clean air act was introduced with a thud. It will cost them at the polls too bad.
KPK





Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 527
Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6Reputation: 3.6
votes: 13
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

P.S. Maybe the Tories can sell their plan to the public using a talking tree as a mascot..or was it corn?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately even had they had an air-tight slap in the face policy on GHGs and smog, environmentalists would still find room to complain and the opposition would still say it didn't go far enough(they might even go as far as to say it would damage economy etc..)

It's basically a lose-lose situation. I feel this government is making financially viable decisions - weighing economy with policy. I'd much rather have that for a year than never have that at all. But I think we'll see another cpc minority if another election takes place in the next 6 months.. after that who's to say.
the CPC still has campaign advantages it has no need to use At the moment. They have that all wonderful incumbent status on them now - who wants to take someone out of power unless they are REALLY screwing up.

I think Harper has most Canadians scratching their heads.. they worried about electing him, and now they see that he's standing behind what he says. Following through with what he promises. I think his fiscally sound policies have really resonated with Canadians - much more than the MSM would like you to think. I see it day to day with the anti-harper rhetoric being toned down a great deal around me. And I reside inside fortress liberal(well, NDP as well). Of course there are the crazies out there who feel Harper is a puppet of the United States. That portion of the population is not the rather centrist main-stay of the country.

And the Liberals will continue to make it easier for us with their scandalous ways ;)

Our sore spot will be Afghanistan - A reason I think we need a better strategy of delivering the mission's message. I would almost suggest some form of information mailing on the topic - get something untouched by the MSM out to the public. Something with raw data, with details on what is going on and what is planned, and options on how to help... Get the country involved in the war- like we were in WW2..
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KPK wrote:
Anyhooo..my point was that there is nothing "imaginative" in the clean air act. That is what joe public was looking for. Instead the clean air act was introduced with a thud. It will cost them at the polls too bad.


The Tory tax credit for mass transit did more for the environment than the sum of all things the Liberals did over ten years.

You speak of hot air. Rick Mercer is hot air.

There was an article by John Ivison in the National Post the other day (John is anything but a conservative supporter) and he consulted a friend who heads an environmental group (and is a self-proclaimed Liberal). He said that the Tory plan was considerably more tough than what the Liberals had proposed.

So you can complain all you want but at least it is more than what the Liberals had to offer after 14 years of rule - 14 YEARS OF RULE AND NOTHING.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Bill signals Kyoto is dead for Canada Reply with quote

Bill signals Kyoto is dead for Canada

Quote:
Canadians are emotionally attached to the idea of the Kyoto Protocol. It plays to our belief that we are international team-players. Whether Kyoto is workable doesn't seem to concern us.

The fact that the United States, without signing on to Kyoto, has been more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions than Canada does not enter people's minds.

Kyoto is like the Bill Clinton of accords: No matter what it does, most Canadians like it, and are hostile to anyone who questions it, or what comes after it.

What the unveiling of the Clean Air Act made apparent, if it wasn't already, is that for Canada, Kyoto is dead. Currently, that may not be popular with Canadians, but it's a good thing.

We are done with targets we cannot meet. While critics may balk at the Tory goal of reducing emissions by 40 to 60 per cent by 2050, that is, at least, a goal that can be met. And certain opposition MPs would do well to remember that those numbers are not at odds with what the primary Liberal leadership candidates are proposing.


link
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What about those lefties in Cuba? Are they complaining?


Yes, because they've confiscated and destroyed all incandecent bulbs and forced homeowners to take out government loans to pay for these new mandatory CFL bubls. The bulbs cost approx. the equivalent of the average Cuban's pay for a month.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
Yes, because they've confiscated and destroyed all incandecent bulbs and forced homeowners to take out government loans to pay for these new mandatory CFL bubls. The bulbs cost approx. the equivalent of the average Cuban's pay for a month.

Aren't the left supposed to be all about compassion? :roll:

Remember- most folks on the left will tell you communism and socialism have only devolved into tyranny everytime they're implimented because the wrong people are put in charge.

-Mac
Buddy Kat





Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 94
Reputation: 24.6Reputation: 24.6
votes: 1
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
KPK wrote:
Anyhooo..my point was that there is nothing "imaginative" in the clean air act. That is what joe public was looking for. Instead the clean air act was introduced with a thud. It will cost them at the polls too bad.


The Tory tax credit for mass transit did more for the environment than the sum of all things the Liberals did over ten years.

You speak of hot air. Rick Mercer is hot air.

There was an article by John Ivison in the National Post the other day (John is anything but a conservative supporter) and he consulted a friend who heads an environmental group (and is a self-proclaimed Liberal). He said that the Tory plan was considerably more tough than what the Liberals had proposed.

So you can complain all you want but at least it is more than what the Liberals had to offer after 14 years of rule - 14 YEARS OF RULE AND NOTHING.



True the liberals didn't accomplish anything instead they made things worse and lied all along the way. While I can't see anything positive resulting in the short term on Harpers clean air act , I do admire the fact he is acting like he said he would albeit slowly and cautiously. Is this good ? ...probably as it isn't an overnite fix it problem ...too many polluters and jobs at stake to just go willy nilly.

However I feel it is too late...should of been done 30 years ago. :(
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buddy Kat wrote:
Craig wrote:
KPK wrote:
Anyhooo..my point was that there is nothing "imaginative" in the clean air act. That is what joe public was looking for. Instead the clean air act was introduced with a thud. It will cost them at the polls too bad.


The Tory tax credit for mass transit did more for the environment than the sum of all things the Liberals did over ten years.

You speak of hot air. Rick Mercer is hot air.

There was an article by John Ivison in the National Post the other day (John is anything but a conservative supporter) and he consulted a friend who heads an environmental group (and is a self-proclaimed Liberal). He said that the Tory plan was considerably more tough than what the Liberals had proposed.

So you can complain all you want but at least it is more than what the Liberals had to offer after 14 years of rule - 14 YEARS OF RULE AND NOTHING.



True the liberals didn't accomplish anything instead they made things worse and lied all along the way. While I can't see anything positive resulting in the short term on Harpers clean air act , I do admire the fact he is acting like he said he would albeit slowly and cautiously. Is this good ? ...probably as it isn't an overnite fix it problem ...too many polluters and jobs at stake to just go willy nilly.

However I feel it is too late...should of been done 30 years ago. :(


Thank you for that BK, I appreciate your thoughts on this.
Evilgenius





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 62
Reputation: 14
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pollution/greenhouse gases are the result of economic activity. We live in a world where the slightest reduction of our standard of living makes everyone very nervous and upset. We could stop pollution overnight if we lived like it was 1699, but we don't want to do that. I wish the Conservative party would explain this tradeoff a lot better than they've been doing.

That said, our environment is far, far cleaner than it was in the 1960s. We're probably in the area of sharply diminishing returns now. Small improvements in the environment are likely to come at a very great cost to us. Again, I wish the Conservative party would make this point a lot better than they've been doing till now.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Clean Air Act - Dead on Arrival?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB