Friday, September 01, 2006

Tory Enviro Spin Update

In our continued campaign of debunking the Tories' environmental propaganda plan, here is a story (also picked up by the Cowboys) from yesterday chronicling a leaked government report stating Harper's government has been paying polling companies for groups aimed at spinning their environment plan and pulling the political debate away from global warming.

Conservative plans for a new environmental policy - said to rely heavily on pollution-fighting measures rather than climate change - fall in line with what focus groups told researchers this summer.

"Comments suggest that the environment is a possible wedge issue for this government. It has the potential to surface rapidly in the public consciousness in response to events and to be seen as an issue on which government performance will ultimately be assessed."

I've written previously this week on what a true environmental plan would look like. Just remember when his plan is revealed that smog does not equal global warming. And be sure to hold this minority government, and their Made in Canada plan, to account for dealing with climate change.


The Artist said...

Global warming requires a comprehensive strategy, best wishes, The Artist

Anonymous said...

Well it's good to know where you stand, debunking a plan that has not even come out. Are you kidding me

Your opinon on this matter is tainted. At least wait for it to come out.

What is wrong with you enviromentlist actvist? do you really have that much hate for Conservatives that you have already, (before the conserrvative plan is realesed) come out againts it.

And you want me to take what your saying as fact please. Anyone who has there mind made up before getting the facts is a bad source.

Odiyya said...

First, I'm not an activist. Second, I'm writing an editorial. Do you understand what one is?

The point of this piece, my uncareful reader, is to address what is shaping up into an obvious propaganda plan. I didn't say anything about dubunking their environmental plan.

Given that your attention to detail is lax, I'll restring the facts that I have been laying out for some months.

1) The Tories are anti anything that limits carbon dioxide output, and they are unapologetically pro oil industry

2) For months they have been washing federal websites clean of any mention of kyoto or climate change

3) According to EXPERTS WHO HAVE SEEN THEIR PLAN ALREADY it does not address climate change

4) They are hiring consultants on tax payers dollars to figure out how to position their environmental stance to their benefit, and

5) I'm stating that, in my opinion and based on available evidence, that represents a well thought out play to divert attention away from global warming and to win votes.

I've been doing my homework. So where's yours? Support your position with something other than hot air. If you can't do that, try purchasing offsets. You owe it to the planet.

Liberal Pebbles said...

It is easy to knock the Tories for being pro-oil. but the liberals and NDP are no better, being pro car and pro steel.

I would very much prefer a plan that deals with smog than no plan at all.

In most peoples minds smog and Kyoto are linked (due to the association used to sell Kyoto to voters) this will also lead to the impression that people will think the smog plan is dealing with Kyoto.

Every time we as liberal criticize this plan for not meeting Kyoto, we will have to acknowledge it accomplishes other things, and that we did niether.

Also, there is nothing wrong with using consultants, to help do focus groups. Liberals have used consultants and focus groups extensively, so this is really the pot calling the kettle black.

In addition, if you acknowledge that global warming is a problem, caused by humans, why are you not condemning Kyoto for not setting a goal of being carbon neutral by a certain date?

Odiyya said...

Good points pebbles. Here is what i would offer in response;

- re: a smog plan vs no plan: on an environmental level any progress is good. What i take exception to is ignoring the greatest threat facing each one of us - climate change - and instead using the environmental issue as a vote manipulating strategy. From a progressive stand point that is not on

- re: liberals need to recognize their own failures. Absolutely they do. IF they were in government doing nothing right now, and trying to manipulate voters I'd be criticizing them. But for now its the Tories.

- re consultants: you are under the mistaken impression that i am a liberal. I'm not, I'm a progressive, and I'll support whatever candidate, party, or platform best serves progressive values.

- re kyoto: I'm not condemning kyoto for not being carbon neutral because it was never designed to be a carbon neutral plan. The point was to get everyone on the same side and moving things in the right direction. This is why discussions have begun on the next stage of kyoto. European countries have done an exceptional job making those initial goal a reality. Canada has ignored them, so our own country will continue to be the target of my criticism.

Liberal Pebbles said...

Europe also happend to go through an industrial collaspe between 1990 and today. If the year for cuts was set at 1992, the story would be much different (about them leading the way on Kyoto).

Odiyya said...

I'm not sure i'm following your point. I take it that you are saying if the targets were set at 1992 levels, that would have represented stiffer target and Europe wouldn't have looked good?

If that is your point, your argument isn't holding water. Europe is leading because they are actually DOING SOMETHING, unlike Canada where we are doing nothing.

Britain has already attained their Kyoto targets and is moving forward with more agressive reductions, and their own benchmarks. Likewise for Germany, where remarkable headway has been reached, and Sweden where they are working to become the world's first oil free economy in the next 15 years, just to name a few successes.

The problem here is that too many people believe nothing can be done. When a Tory steps to the plate and talks about the boogeyman of 'lost jobs' political will falls over, because too few people take the time to establish some real vision, and take a look at other countries int he world where they are actually successfully solving the world's problems.

Anonymous said...

Germany has met the targets, because of the industrial collaspe of east germany. Britain has met because of the transition from coal to natural gas.

Sweden's economy hasn't grown substaintially in the past 12 year, plus their Kyoto goals weren't as onerous as ours.

Going oil free does not mean reducing green house gasses one bit. You could be transitioning to a coal powered economy, or to traditional corn ethanol which is uses more energy in production than it produces.

Odiyya said...

hmmmm Anonymous.....

You can nit pick about reasons for success, but "industrial collapse" or not (quite an extreme characterization i'd add), germany continues to set reduction targets and is generally making progress.

As for Sweden, if you took the time to actually read the link in my last comment you would have seen that their plan is to replace oil consumption with renewables, which in case its not patently obvious, does not include coal.

Here's a challenge of the week for everyone, its a two parter so try to read to the end - part 1) try reading the material before commenting and then 2) cite a source for your own information.

I know its tough, but those are the basics.

EX-NDIP said...

Canada's Liberal Govt, when they signed on to Kyoto, negotiated the LARGEST CO2 REDUCTION of any participating country!!!
Although we were absorbing close to 300,000 immigrants annually, we are covered with snow 4 or 5 months a year.
Are we surprised that they did almost nothing after signing the agreement???

How many of you believe that if Canadians all sat in the cold and dark for a year that is would make 1/1000th of a degree of difference in the Global Temperature???

Its time we all realized that "Kyoto" is a joke . . . no one has met or exceeded their commitment . . . China and India, the two most populous nations didn't even sign. So lets stop kidding ourselves.

Odiyya . . . where were you while the Chretch didled for most of the last decade . . . everytime someone critises Kyoto they are paid off by big oil . . . sooo nuts.
What about the Suzukki's of the world sucking govt handouts and sucking up tax-free donations under false pretenses. What has Club Sierra and Suzukki done, besides complain and raise money . . . he should stick to the zoo, after all he is a zoologist.

Was just in Sweden, they have some neat stuff, like the way they dispose of Stockholm's garbage. Incinerated in Lynkoping, creating methane to run the busses, the incinerator heats most public buildings in town and is emissions free.
But on the other side of the coin, a large number of Swedes still use wood to heat their homes in winter.

Odiyya said...

Thanks for offering some perspective on sweden ex-ndip. good info.

Just to respond to a couple points. Where was I when the Liberal's negotiated Kyoto? My blog is three months old, so the simple answer would be 'not blogging'. As for the total cuts we should work towards, the Accord is tied to a common historical rate of emissions (i.e. 1990), but Canada's biggest problem has been doing absolutely nothing while our emissions have soared.

Bad strategy.

If Chretien was still around I'd be criticizing him for doing nothing, but now that the Tories are representing Canadians, 77% of whom want our Kyoto commitments to be met or exceeded, they'd better get moving.

RE: wood burning in Sweden. Like our Anonymous commentator before you, you missed the point with respect to burning fuel. Kyoto is a market driven approach, a strategy that you and your fellow righties are supposed to understand. In lay terms, this means the government sets the target and the free market provides the most cost effective solution. If you burn biomass waste like instead of natural gas you reduce the amount of CO2 produced.

'How' you reduce CO2 shouldn't be up to the government, and its not. The point is that the net result of your decisions will result in a net reduction of CO2.

And one tip - lay off this weird anti-charity rant of yours. You can't even spell their names right, and it makes you sound like a jackass - especially after you had brough up a couple solid points this time around.