Harper Government Flip Flops on Carbon Market
Leading federal issue in the news in Quebec this evening is not the failed afghan motion but the flip flop of the Harper government on the issue of a carbon market.
Volte-face indeed!
I have not read the Bloc Quebecois motion but if the news reports are right, the Harper government voted to support a motion establishing a carbon market in Montreal where people can trade carbon credits in an effort to meet Kyoto targets.
The vote was unanimous…
I wait to see how this will work, but it is interesting to see how this story will develop…
Volte-face indeed!
I have not read the Bloc Quebecois motion but if the news reports are right, the Harper government voted to support a motion establishing a carbon market in Montreal where people can trade carbon credits in an effort to meet Kyoto targets.
The vote was unanimous…
I wait to see how this will work, but it is interesting to see how this story will develop…
par / by Anthony à / at 6:36 p.m.
10 Commentaires:
I suggest you read the motion Antonio. The con's used vague language, that may have been a result of translation, to look green.
But the vague language was corrected, and they still voted for it. I have no idea what this means.
I would add that Baird has always indicated the willingness to look at the setup of a domestic carbon market. Its the international one such as Dion has proposed that he has problems with (which is why he's in the she-said, he-said role of whether he's going to kill the CAA or not.. seeing as he thinks its a "liberal bill).
If they somehow managed to vote for an int'l carbon market, then I'll perk up and listen, and then hope Dion gets out there to the media and takes credit for changing the Conservative's minds.
But, if its just some vague motion for the creation of a domestic market.. then no big deal.
Hello, I totally agree with Scott on this one, the motion as I see it refers to a domestic carbon market. I would be totally surprised to see the CPC push or support the international one.
Don't the French have a saying along these lines " The more things change ..."... the utter corruption of this country seems to be on schedule , n'est pas ? Always in Montreal ... let the pandering begin .
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'd like to hear what Kyoto the dog has to say about all this, given that he is the most enviro-knowledgeable high-ranking Liberal out there.
Antonio, if you get a dog, will you call him Fiscal Imbalance? I think he'd make a good replacement for the Liberal MP of your riding. I think you agree with me on that.
Like I said, I havent read the motion, I am just reporting what I heard on the news tonight
Well read it please. bigcitylib is right in correcting me, it was corrected. Scott is also right in suggesting that Baird only wanted a domestic market, (which makes no sense btw), but I think the con's committed before the changes were made.
That may not mean anything legally, but it does show how ill prepared they are.
"The con's used vague language, that may have been a result of translation, to look green".
It was a Bloc motion with Bloc wording.
"But the vague language was corrected".
One word in the English version was amended from fixed to absolute.
Are we talking about this resolution?
"That the House call on the government to set absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montréal".
Notwithstanding all the spin the resolution does not say:
"That the House call on the government to set absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, AND the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montréal".
Nor does it say:
"That the House call on the government to set absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets of X by X as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol"
Nor does it even reference an international carbon exchange.
Most of this thread appears to be confused comments about confused reporting AND confused conclusions about how confused the MP's must have been.
To specifics. The original Clean Air Act required absolute caps by 2020. Tomorrow the Conservatives will agree to absolute caps by 2012.
They will not be agreeing to 30% reductions below those hard caps to be achieved across the 2009-2012 period. The Rodrigues motion once passed by the Senate will generate a paper report. Non-confidence and an election is the only thing that will make the last decade of cuts take place in 2 years.
Otherwise carry on.
Post a Comment
<< Home