Monday, November 26, 2007

Aspire to what?

Stephen Harper knowing full well that John Howard was going down in flames this past weekend in the Australian elections, losing big time to Labour's Kevin Rudd, managed single-handed to torpedo this past week's Commonwealth summit. Rather than hard targets, the guy who long ago sold out his soul to Big Oil bullied the other 52 leaders into saying the Commonwealth would only seek to "aspire" to carbon dioxide reductions. With no clear definition as to what those targets should be.

No, I'm not happy the previous Liberal government didn't do more to get Canada to meet Kyoto. But for the Conservatives to just throw in the towel and not try to reduce pollution levels, even if they are way off, is disgusting.

He wants Canada to aspire to something? How about aspiring to eliminating child and elderly poverty in Canada. Cutting poverty in Africa and South Asia by half; primarily through disease prevention, sex education and micro credit. Declaring the high seas and Antarctica are strictly off limits to pirates and reckless exploration and Canada will join with other allies to enforce this principle.

Those are aspirational goals, realistic and achievable goals.

To aspire to cut pollution is only to say that the Conservatives support increased pollution. Because intensity only means cuts in pollutions per person, which is fine since the population is growing anyway.

We need real targets, with real consequences. Because there's no point in making the world a better place, if we can't breathe the air and drink the water.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

4 comments:

Johnathon said...

THe new Australian P.M has the same position as Harper.

Mr Rudd also flatly contradicted his environment spokesman and said a Labor government would not ratify the new round of Kyoto plans unless developing nations signed binding agreements. "I have made absolutely clear that we would need to see clear-cut commitments from the major emitters from the developing world for us to become party to that agreement," he said.


Why didn't you put that into your opinion?

Why did you leave that out?

Are you not doing your homework?

Come on man, please get it together.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22677281-601,00.html

Jay said...

Hey, don't knock it.

I have been aspiring to be an astronaut since I was 4.

I am 33 now, do you mean to tell me that I shouldn't aspire any longer?

What about my zero g space walk!

ALW said...

A few thigns:

1) Johnathon's right about Kevin Rudd. How about that.

2) I find it interesting that you think Harper can single-handedly dictate things to the Commonwealth. That's a lot of clout - pretty impressive!

3) I am not sure how Harper sold his soul to Big Oil since corporate contributions are now illegal in Canada.

4) Just because we sign an international treaty doesn't mean it's going to be met (see: Kyoto). And just because we don't sign one doesn't mean we can't reduce our emissions anyway.

5) What, no mention of Harper's Africa announcement today?

Jay said...

1) Johnathon's right about Kevin Rudd. How about that.

One story. We know how that works don't we. Lets wait for more before relying on a single story from one media outlet.

2) I find it interesting that you think Harper can single-handedly dictate things to the Commonwealth. That's a lot of clout - pretty impressive!

Actually, everyone had to agree to a statement they could all live by. So If I wanted to do a lot and harpoon wanted to do little then in order to reach consensus you adopt the unambitious plan or you have nothing. No quite what you are implying that people accepted harpoons faulty plan as the best. It was all they could agree on because Harppon aimed so low.

3) I am not sure how Harper sold his soul to Big Oil since corporate contributions are now illegal in Canada.

Now its illegal. Hows that disclosure on Harpers part going about where all his money come form which he won't reveal.

4) Just because we sign an international treaty doesn't mean it's going to be met (see: Kyoto). And just because we don't sign one doesn't mean we can't reduce our emissions anyway.

Great idea. Lets try that one with income taxes and see how great the result will be with government money flow. Being in a treaty like Kyoto has penalties which is why Harper says from one face we respect Kyoto and then from his other face does what he did in Uganda. The fact is WE WILL BE PENALIZED if Harpocrite formally breaks it.

5) What, no mention of Harper's Africa announcement today?

Deflection due to the selling out he did in Uganda. A photo op does not gaurantee he will follow through on this. Like the money he pldeged but didn't deliver to AIDS groups, the feebate for green cars, and on and on.


And you people claimed the liberals made empty promises and agreements. The conservatives seem to have one-upped every past political party on this front for sure.

How's Wajid Doing these day?