Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Towards 2020

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, August 3, 2011 11:27am - 44 Comments

While officials told Environment Minister Peter Kent in January that existing measures left Canada short of its emission targets, the National Round Table on the Environment finds the government has overstated projected reductions.

The report, produced by an independent arm’s-length agency, broke out eight specific federal policies and their estimates, and found that the government made reliable estimates for only three. The other five were “likely overestimated,” according to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

All in all, the package of climate policies the federal government has adopted will likely have half the effect claimed when each policy was introduced, the report suggests.

Tags: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Anonymous

    I’m shocked…shocked I tell you!

  • Anonymous

    I’m shocked…shocked I tell you!

  • TonyAdams

    If Climatologists don’t understand their own theories, why should the rest of us believe in global warming? Scientists are meant to prove things using scientific method, why aren’t climatologists doing so? 

    We have fake solutions to fix a fake problem. Surely scientists, and Canadians in general, should try to do better than pigeons.  

    “Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

    “Superstitions arise as the result of the spurious identification of patterns. Even pigeons are superstitious …. Beliefs come first; reasons second. That’s the insightful message of “The Believing Brain” ….. A human ancestor hears a rustle in the grass. Is it the wind or a lion? ….. Patterns in life are variously ascribed to the work of ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers and federal conspirators ….  ends with an engaging history of astronomy that illustrates how the scientific method developed as the only reliable way for us to discover true patterns and true agents at work.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303365804576432011569887724.html

    • Anonymous

      To your first cherry-pick, I give you: Myth #9.  There’s a reason that article was published in 2009.  Of course, as usual, Tony cherry-picks, and doesn’t bother looking at the whole thing, such as this part later on down in the same spiegel article: “We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations,”

      As for your superstitions quote, it is good of you to point out how it’s the recognition of patterns, such as the average global temperature increasing, leads to the exploration of it via the scientific method which has lead to a consensus opinion among the vast majority of scientists exploring the phenomenon.

  • TonyAdams

    If Climatologists don’t understand their own theories, why should the rest of us believe in global warming? Scientists are meant to prove things using scientific method, why aren’t climatologists doing so? 

    We have fake solutions to fix a fake problem. Surely scientists, and Canadians in general, should try to do better than pigeons.  

    “Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

    “Superstitions arise as the result of the spurious identification of patterns. Even pigeons are superstitious …. Beliefs come first; reasons second. That’s the insightful message of “The Believing Brain” ….. A human ancestor hears a rustle in the grass. Is it the wind or a lion? ….. Patterns in life are variously ascribed to the work of ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers and federal conspirators ….  ends with an engaging history of astronomy that illustrates how the scientific method developed as the only reliable way for us to discover true patterns and true agents at work.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303365804576432011569887724.html

  • Anonymous

    And let’s not forget that our Conservative government “deliberately excluded data indicating a 20 per cent increase in annual pollution from Canada’s oilsands industry in 2009 from a recent 567-page report on climate change that it was required to submit to the United Nations.” (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Tories+left+oilsands+data+report/4859545/story.html#ixzz1TyknC4qA)

    When in doubt, just lie. Disgusting.

  • AVR

    Giant Meh. The climate hysteria of the aughts has subsided, just like every other eco-panic since the mid-70s; let’s get back to gently humouring the doomsayers in ways that don’t significantly affect policy.

    • Anonymous

      The government has a pattern of publishing dishonest data, and you have a “giant meh”.

      I guess it’s ok when it’s your party doing the lying eh?

    • Anonymous

      The government has a pattern of publishing dishonest data, and you have a “giant meh”.

      I guess it’s ok when it’s your party doing the lying eh?

    • Anonymous

      The government has a pattern of publishing dishonest data, and you have a “giant meh”.

      I guess it’s ok when it’s your party doing the lying eh?

    • Anonymous

      Isn’t the “gentle humour” more effective if the government comes anywhere close to meeting it’s own ridiculously low targets? 

      It seems to me that lowering the bar and achieving the new Tory-set standard is one way to humour people.  Or, you could humour them by keeping the targets where the people you’re humouring think they need to be, but fail to hit them.  Who is actually being humoured when the government lowers the targets and then fails to meet their own lowered targets???

      Then again, it’s not like we’re talking about something important.  It’s only “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today”.*

      *Stephen Harper, 2007

    • Anonymous

      Isn’t the “gentle humour” more effective if the government comes anywhere close to meeting it’s own ridiculously low targets? 

      It seems to me that lowering the bar and achieving the new Tory-set standard is one way to humour people.  Or, you could humour them by keeping the targets where the people you’re humouring think they need to be, but fail to hit them.  Who is actually being humoured when the government lowers the targets and then fails to meet their own lowered targets???

      Then again, it’s not like we’re talking about something important.  It’s only “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today”.*

      *Stephen Harper, 2007

      • AVR

        “Perhaps the biggest threat,” and setting any targets at all, is the gently-humouring-them-part. Putting very little money or effort into achieving it is the realistic-policy-decision part. It’s not as though there’s any real social, political, economic or infrastructural payoff in doing otherwise.

        • Anonymous

          Sheesh, and you were concerned about Lizzy May and science!

        • Anonymous

          So, Harper was just flat-out lying when answering a question about what he considers to be the greatest threat to the future of the human race???

          Is that not an important enough issue for the public to expect the truth from their PM on?  If he’s willing to lie to our faces with regard to what the greatest threat to the existence of our species is, what WOULDN’T he lie to us about???

          • AVR

            He knows that there’s little downside to paying lip service to a motherhood-and-apple-pie concept, and little upside to doing anything beyond that.

            In any event, I agree, it certainly is a grave threat to the future of humanity…right up there with the sun burning out and asteroid impact events. Massive problem when it occurs, but the immediacy is questionable.

          • Anonymous

            In any event, I agree, it certainly is a grave threat to the future of
            humanity…right up there with the sun burning out and asteroid impact
            events. Massive problem when it occurs, but the immediacy is
            questionable.

            Well, I do agree that there’s some question as to the immediacy of the threat, but in my mind it’s more of a “if we don’t do anything will we be totally screwed in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years or 100″.  I certainly don’t put it on the billions of years time scale of the Sun burning out.

            I’d also argue that there’s still the potential that we can do something to reverse climate change (I kinda think we’re already screwed on that front, but not everyone does) but I think with the Sun being extinguished or extinction level asteroid events there’s pretty little we could do even if we all saw it coming.

          • Anonymous

            Oh he’s doing something about it…he’s planning on making the NorthWest passage…which is now open…another mililtary matter

          • Anonymous

            Good to know that we agree that he’s just “paying lip service” to the citizenry of Canada.

            Frankly, I’m surprised at how easy it was to get you to admit that the Prime Minister of Canada is making public commitments to his citizens and to the world that he has no intention whatsoever of keeping.  It’s usually more difficult to get partisans to admit that a politician that they generally support is telling baldfaced lies to the people of the country, and making international commitments that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

    • Anonymous

      Isn’t the “gentle humour” more effective if the government comes anywhere close to meeting it’s own ridiculously low targets? 

      It seems to me that lowering the bar and achieving the new Tory-set standard is one way to humour people.  Or, you could humour them by keeping the targets where the people you’re humouring think they need to be, but fail to hit them.  Who is actually being humoured when the government lowers the targets and then fails to meet their own lowered targets???

      Then again, it’s not like we’re talking about something important.  It’s only “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today”.*

      *Stephen Harper, 2007

    • Anonymous

      Isn’t the “gentle humour” more effective if the government comes anywhere close to meeting it’s own ridiculously low targets? 

      It seems to me that lowering the bar and achieving the new Tory-set standard is one way to humour people.  Or, you could humour them by keeping the targets where the people you’re humouring think they need to be, but fail to hit them.  Who is actually being humoured when the government lowers the targets and then fails to meet their own lowered targets???

      Then again, it’s not like we’re talking about something important.  It’s only “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today”.*

      *Stephen Harper, 2007

  • AVR

    Giant Meh. The climate hysteria of the aughts has subsided, just like every other eco-panic since the mid-70s; let’s get back to gently humouring the doomsayers in ways that don’t significantly affect policy.

  • AVR

    Giant Meh. The climate hysteria of the aughts has subsided, just like every other eco-panic since the mid-70s; let’s get back to gently humouring the doomsayers in ways that don’t significantly affect policy.

  • AVR

    Giant Meh. The climate hysteria of the aughts has subsided, just like every other eco-panic since the mid-70s; let’s get back to gently humouring the doomsayers in ways that don’t significantly affect policy.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      Deniers…almost always white Con men…keep tossing up articles that don’t change global warming….and then crowing about it.

      It’s a puzzlement.

      • TonyAdams

        Shouldn’t the earth be warming before we get worried about a warm earth?

        Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

        A: Yes, but only just.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

        • Anonymous

          You’ve been corrected on that quote several times now, so stop using it.

        • Anonymous

          You’ve been corrected on that quote several times now, so stop using it.

        • Anonymous

          You’ve been corrected on that quote several times now, so stop using it.

      • TonyAdams

        Shouldn’t the earth be warming before we get worried about a warm earth?

        Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

        A: Yes, but only just.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    • Anonymous

      Deniers…almost always white Con men…keep tossing up articles that don’t change global warming….and then crowing about it.

      It’s a puzzlement.

    • Anonymous

      Deniers…almost always white Con men…keep tossing up articles that don’t change global warming….and then crowing about it.

      It’s a puzzlement.

    • Anonymous

      Deniers…almost always white Con men…keep tossing up articles that don’t change global warming….and then crowing about it.

      It’s a puzzlement.

    • Anonymous

      Why that blows a hole in the the global warming theory. BLOWS A HOLE!

      Except, no. Read, I dare you: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108010025?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-All+%28Media+Matters+for+America%29

      The Forbes article blows, alright. A hole? Not so much.

      • Anonymous

        Dr Spencer is trying to make GW fit his religion

  • Anonymous

    what is or who is the national round table on the environment?

  • Halo_Override

    The earth’s got a fever — and the only prescription — is more tax cuts.

    (Second time today I’ve used variations on that classic. I’m in a rut.)

  • 6_66

    With politicians and the big industry the only way they believe in science is when it benefits them either politically or economically. Even with the most successful world treaty, the Montreal Protocol, it wasn’t until a) the industry was allowed to continue producing some CFCs and b) an expensive alternative to CFCs was developed both the politicians and the industry finally embraced the treaty. 
    It appears we’ll go nowhere with the climate change until we get these guys some intensive…

  • Anonymous

    As Gwyn Dyer states, Canada has the only remaining government in the world now that doesn’t believe climate change is happening.  Even G W Bush started comprehending the problem at the end of his term.  The British government understood the issue back in Thatcher’s heyday.

    Not that it matters, as solving this problem will require international cooperation, and that just is never going to happen so long as short-run political issues (and oil money) rule the day.

Previous

Next

From Macleans