Monday, June 04, 2007

Canada and Europe Agree on Climate Change, Sort of

The Prime Minister's office has released the 2007 EU-Canada Summit Statement outlining the results of Stephen Harper's meeting with German Chancellor and European Union Chair Angela Merkel. It announces that both parties agree to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, they are at odds when it comes to the finer points of the math.

Harper and Merkel issued a statement saying both sides sought cuts in greenhouse gases by at least half by the year 2050. However, they remain divided on what year to take as a starting point, with the EU favouring 1990 and Canada 2006.

Oh well. What's 16 years and a few billion tonnes of C02 anyway?

The complete statement is available on the Conservative Party website.

7 comments:

Ocean and Forest Walks said...

I have just found your blog and am intrigued - nice to see a Canadian and local blog like this. I will follow your blogs each day.

Odiyya said...

Thanks OFW - likewise.

billg said...

The first of many compromises Ms Merkel is going to make. Somewhere in between the far rights claim that the earth will clean itself, and the far left's claim that we are all doomed...is the middle, and, with a few compromises we can start to make up ground on lost time.

Odiyya said...

Bill i'm sorry, but you have to go back to the books. Nobody in the enviro community is saying we're doomed. Believe me, I work inside of it. What they are saying is that we need action, and we need to move quickly. The only "doom" out there is from the right wing who accuses the people who call for action of being doomsayers. (Much like they accused Kerry of fiction in the swift boat. Much as they wrongfully accuse al gore of hypocrisy, mush as they say the economy is doomed if we can't burn all the oil we want).

the action we need is to REDUCE carbon dioxide. The compromise you keep talking about is fictional, becuase Bush is proposing, nor doing, nothing to reduce US carbon dioxide production anywhere.

He's doing the opposite. he's pushing for policies that allow as much fossil fuel dependence as possible, and to secure as much US access to the world's oil as he can.

Or after decades of failed 'voluntary' measures throughout the western world, do you really thing Bush's latest voluntary proposal will be miraculously different?

Peter Dodson said...

I think we should propose cutting 50% from the 2049 ghg emissions. Or the 2050. What the hell, how about 2100?

To be honest, I don't care what date we choose - let's just start.

Greenwoman said...

Its excellent that any country is doing this work. Some of that work is for naught if the US doesn't do its share because we are great offenders when it comes to air pollution...especially in Southern states.

Odiyya said...

LOL, Well put Peter & GW. I've had similar thoughts in the past. My only point to add is that those first moves are enforced with law. They can always be added to, or improved on as we start to get industry moving in the right direction.