This is from Google. Even if the EU boycotts the January meetings called for the US in Hawaii Harper will be there close Bush buddy. The whole idea of these meetings is to have a parallel process more under US control.
EU Threatens to Boycott US Climate Meet
BALI, Indonesia (AP) — European nations will boycott U.S.-led climate talks next month unless Washington accepts a range of numbers for negotiating deep reductions of global-warming emissions, Germany's environment minister said Thursday.
"No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting," said Sigmar Gabriel, a top EU environment official, referring to a series of separate climate talks initiated by President Bush in September.
The U.S. invited 16 other "major economies" to discuss a possible program of nationally determined, voluntary cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to the binding targets favored by the EU and others now meeting in Bali.
Showing posts with label Bali meeting on the environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bali meeting on the environment. Show all posts
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Baird ducks meeting with activists
Most of the Conservative program on the environment is smoke and mirrors and their international role is to play tag team as chief fossil opposing progressive change Canada's partner being the US. The Conservative goal of reducing emissions by 20 percent takes 2006 as a baseline rather than 1990 as other nations have done.
Baird accused of ducking meeting with activists
Updated Tue. Dec. 11 2007 6:21 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Environment Minister John Baird told reporters in Bali on Tuesday that while Canada believes in hard targets to cut greenhouse emissions, now is not the time to introduce them.
The international community has gathered in Indonesia to hammer out initial details of a post-Kyoto pact to deal with climate change.
Canada has been among the leaders -- along with the United States and Japan -- in opposing a reference to specific goals for developed countries to cut emissions by 2020.
A draft resolution introduced at the summit would have asked developed countries to cut emissions by 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. The whole world would be required to stabilize emissions within 15 years.
Baird told reporters at the conference that "We're not here to do the formal negotiations, we're here to launch negotiations."
Baird accused of ducking meeting
Baird was supposed to explain Canada's position at a meeting with non-governmental activists attending the conference. He showed up for the meeting, but quickly left before speaking.
Canadian activists and others waited for the minister to return. But they were later told Baird had to attend negotiations and would not be back.
"The minister who was supposed to address us was AWOL. He ran away," said Olivier Lavoie of the Canadian Youth in Action.
Lavoie said the minister probably did not want to confront young activists critical of Canada's stand.
Europeans push for targets
Stavros Dimas, European commissioner for the environment, said setting a target for 2020 is essential to hold the global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels, something necessary for staving off dangerous climate change.
"We need this range of reductions by developed countries," he told reporters Tuesday. "Science tells us that these reductions are necessary. Logic requires that we listen to science."
Baird has been saying that Canada intends to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.
However, the Tories use a baseline year of 2006, not the much tougher 1990 standard that all other nations use.
Climate analysts have said the Tories' plan -- if it even works -- would leave Canada's emissions two per cent above 1990 levels by 2020.
The European Union wants to cut its emissions by at least 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
Canada's Kyoto target is to cut emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. However, greenhouse gas emissions rose by about 27 per cent between 1990 and 2004.
Dion calls for leadership
Meanwhile Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, who is now in Bali, said delegates need to show leadership.
Baird has repeatedly argued that Canada will not accept any deal unless it includes major polluters like the United States, China and India.
"It's certainly not enough to say, 'I will do something only if the others do something'," Dion told a meeting of municipal leaders. "The good philosophy is to say, 'I will do the most I can and I ask you to do the same.'"
Dion, who calls the Tory approach "a recipe for failure," has met with Canadian environmentalists -- something the government delegation hasn't done -- and will meet with UN climate boss Yvo de Boer, who had some pointed words about the Canadian position.
"I personally find it interesting to hear Canada just a little while ago indicating it would not meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol," de Boer said Monday. "Now (it's) calling on developing countries to take binding reduction targets."
Canada is one of the world's top per capita emitters of greenhouse gases, along with the United States and Australia.
Canada and the U.S. emitted about 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per capita in 2004. In comparison, China emitted 3.8 tonnes and India 1.2 tonnes.
However, China's huge population, booming economy, and heavy reliance on coal-fired electricity means it may have already passed the United States as the world's top total emitter.
Tuesday also marks a key climate anniversary: The Kyoto Protocol was signed 10 years ago in Japan. The Bali talks are part of the process of developing a post-Kyoto treaty.
Kyoto required 36 industrialized countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.
The United States refused to ratify Kyoto. U.S. President George Bush said cuts would hurt his country's economy. He was also opposed to excluding developing countries from making emissions cuts.
With files from The Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baird accused of ducking meeting with activists
Updated Tue. Dec. 11 2007 6:21 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Environment Minister John Baird told reporters in Bali on Tuesday that while Canada believes in hard targets to cut greenhouse emissions, now is not the time to introduce them.
The international community has gathered in Indonesia to hammer out initial details of a post-Kyoto pact to deal with climate change.
Canada has been among the leaders -- along with the United States and Japan -- in opposing a reference to specific goals for developed countries to cut emissions by 2020.
A draft resolution introduced at the summit would have asked developed countries to cut emissions by 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. The whole world would be required to stabilize emissions within 15 years.
Baird told reporters at the conference that "We're not here to do the formal negotiations, we're here to launch negotiations."
Baird accused of ducking meeting
Baird was supposed to explain Canada's position at a meeting with non-governmental activists attending the conference. He showed up for the meeting, but quickly left before speaking.
Canadian activists and others waited for the minister to return. But they were later told Baird had to attend negotiations and would not be back.
"The minister who was supposed to address us was AWOL. He ran away," said Olivier Lavoie of the Canadian Youth in Action.
Lavoie said the minister probably did not want to confront young activists critical of Canada's stand.
Europeans push for targets
Stavros Dimas, European commissioner for the environment, said setting a target for 2020 is essential to hold the global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels, something necessary for staving off dangerous climate change.
"We need this range of reductions by developed countries," he told reporters Tuesday. "Science tells us that these reductions are necessary. Logic requires that we listen to science."
Baird has been saying that Canada intends to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.
However, the Tories use a baseline year of 2006, not the much tougher 1990 standard that all other nations use.
Climate analysts have said the Tories' plan -- if it even works -- would leave Canada's emissions two per cent above 1990 levels by 2020.
The European Union wants to cut its emissions by at least 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
Canada's Kyoto target is to cut emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. However, greenhouse gas emissions rose by about 27 per cent between 1990 and 2004.
Dion calls for leadership
Meanwhile Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, who is now in Bali, said delegates need to show leadership.
Baird has repeatedly argued that Canada will not accept any deal unless it includes major polluters like the United States, China and India.
"It's certainly not enough to say, 'I will do something only if the others do something'," Dion told a meeting of municipal leaders. "The good philosophy is to say, 'I will do the most I can and I ask you to do the same.'"
Dion, who calls the Tory approach "a recipe for failure," has met with Canadian environmentalists -- something the government delegation hasn't done -- and will meet with UN climate boss Yvo de Boer, who had some pointed words about the Canadian position.
"I personally find it interesting to hear Canada just a little while ago indicating it would not meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol," de Boer said Monday. "Now (it's) calling on developing countries to take binding reduction targets."
Canada is one of the world's top per capita emitters of greenhouse gases, along with the United States and Australia.
Canada and the U.S. emitted about 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per capita in 2004. In comparison, China emitted 3.8 tonnes and India 1.2 tonnes.
However, China's huge population, booming economy, and heavy reliance on coal-fired electricity means it may have already passed the United States as the world's top total emitter.
Tuesday also marks a key climate anniversary: The Kyoto Protocol was signed 10 years ago in Japan. The Bali talks are part of the process of developing a post-Kyoto treaty.
Kyoto required 36 industrialized countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.
The United States refused to ratify Kyoto. U.S. President George Bush said cuts would hurt his country's economy. He was also opposed to excluding developing countries from making emissions cuts.
With files from The Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Baird takes centre stage at Bali
This is from the Harper Index a useful source for articles critical of the Harper government. This article is valuable in that it goes into some of the Baird's background and shows his consistently reactionary stance on issues dating back to his days in the Harris common nonsense government.
Baird takes centre stage in Bali within days of slush fund testimony to committee
Environment minister "haunted" by past and present as political operator opposed to environmental initiatives.
BALI, INDONESIA, December 10, 2007: John Baird is a centre of international attention at this week's climate change talks here. The international community is adjusting to a Canada that initially promoted the Kyoto protocol and whose top ministers are now undermining it with proposed revisions that appear to favour big polluters such as Alberta's oil industry.
Observers who haven't followed recent Canadian politics may be surprised at Canada's environment minister, but John Baird's opposition to Kyoto is consistent with his record. Before, and ever since he got involved in federal politics, he has actively opposed Kyoto and promoted industrial interests over environment ones. He has managed to cultivate a better public image than his predecessor Rona Ambrose without actually changing course.
Although Ambrose was criticized for the cuts that were made to environment programs when she was minister, many were directed by Baird, who was then Treasury Board chair. Under Baird's tenure there, his officials suspended all payments on pledges for United Nations work to protect the environment. This included payments to the United Nations Environment Programme and to international treaties such as the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
While at Treasury Board, Baird also became involved in the fight against light rail transit in his hometown of Ottawa. Ultimately, he made decisive moves that helped kill the proposal at a cost to municipal taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars in cancellation fees.
As environment minister, he presides over a fund that critics claim is more about politics than global warming. Last week he testified to Parliament's environment and sustainable development committee about the government's $1.5 billion Canada Eco Trust Fund for Clean Air and Climate Change. The online news bulletin DeSmogBlog reports that Baird "waffled about heavily, and refused to provide a full accounting" for spending under the program, which some observers have likened to a political slush fund.
Skeptics cite the $349.9 million announced in February 2007 for Quebec - the first round of funding under the program - as an example of how that money is being used politically. At the time, an spring election was widely anticipated, with the province of Quebec a main battleground in the Conservative's fight to attain a majority government.
Three weeks ago, Auditor General, Sheila Fraser said about of the fund: "We are deeply concerned about very large transfers being made purportedly for certain purposes. But when you look at the actual agreements there are absolutely no conditions requiring the recipient to use the moneys for the purposes being announced." Provinces are free to use Eco Trust money however they like. Since before his days as a Mike Harris Cabinet minister, Baird, who worked for defence minister Perrin Beatty in the Mulroney era, has a history as a political operative. He has repeatedly been called upon to oppose key objectives of the environment movement.
In 2002, Toronto's NOW Magazine reported on a meeting in that city by what proved to be a short-lived industry front group called the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions (CCRES). Baird made a passionate anti-Kyoto speech there, reported Greenpeace campaigner John Matlow in Toronto's NOW Magazine.
Last month, Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund) filed a lawsuit alleging that Baird broke the law when he directed mining companies to ignore their legal responsibility to report millions of kilograms of pollution from their operations under the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI).
"The law is clear: Mining companies in Canada are legally required to report the amount of chemicals they are releasing into the environment," said Justin Duncan, Staff Lawyer with Ecojustice. "Instead, at the direction of the Minister of Environment, these companies continue to flout the law by not reporting massive amounts of toxic tailings they dump into our environment each year." Baird, they say, is encouraging mining companies to hide the amount of toxic material they are dumping.
Professor Nancy Doubleday, of the Carleton University Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, says Baird has ghosts to face in the context of becoming environment minister. The first, she says, is the ghost of Walkerton, the Ontario town where eight people died due to Conservative deregulation and privatization of water inspection services.
"Although not causally tied to the deaths" there, she says he "had an opportunity to influence partisan initiatives and deregulatory fervour in the dismantling of (among other things) the environmental works of a province (Ontario) that had once led the country in matters of environmental quality."
She says he is also haunted by the ghost of light rail and urban responsibility. "Here we recall partisan intervention in intergovernmental relations, derailing the new deal for cities, where the majority of Canadians (for the first time in our history) now live."
Baird takes centre stage in Bali within days of slush fund testimony to committee
Environment minister "haunted" by past and present as political operator opposed to environmental initiatives.
BALI, INDONESIA, December 10, 2007: John Baird is a centre of international attention at this week's climate change talks here. The international community is adjusting to a Canada that initially promoted the Kyoto protocol and whose top ministers are now undermining it with proposed revisions that appear to favour big polluters such as Alberta's oil industry.
Observers who haven't followed recent Canadian politics may be surprised at Canada's environment minister, but John Baird's opposition to Kyoto is consistent with his record. Before, and ever since he got involved in federal politics, he has actively opposed Kyoto and promoted industrial interests over environment ones. He has managed to cultivate a better public image than his predecessor Rona Ambrose without actually changing course.
Although Ambrose was criticized for the cuts that were made to environment programs when she was minister, many were directed by Baird, who was then Treasury Board chair. Under Baird's tenure there, his officials suspended all payments on pledges for United Nations work to protect the environment. This included payments to the United Nations Environment Programme and to international treaties such as the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
While at Treasury Board, Baird also became involved in the fight against light rail transit in his hometown of Ottawa. Ultimately, he made decisive moves that helped kill the proposal at a cost to municipal taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars in cancellation fees.
As environment minister, he presides over a fund that critics claim is more about politics than global warming. Last week he testified to Parliament's environment and sustainable development committee about the government's $1.5 billion Canada Eco Trust Fund for Clean Air and Climate Change. The online news bulletin DeSmogBlog reports that Baird "waffled about heavily, and refused to provide a full accounting" for spending under the program, which some observers have likened to a political slush fund.
Skeptics cite the $349.9 million announced in February 2007 for Quebec - the first round of funding under the program - as an example of how that money is being used politically. At the time, an spring election was widely anticipated, with the province of Quebec a main battleground in the Conservative's fight to attain a majority government.
Three weeks ago, Auditor General, Sheila Fraser said about of the fund: "We are deeply concerned about very large transfers being made purportedly for certain purposes. But when you look at the actual agreements there are absolutely no conditions requiring the recipient to use the moneys for the purposes being announced." Provinces are free to use Eco Trust money however they like. Since before his days as a Mike Harris Cabinet minister, Baird, who worked for defence minister Perrin Beatty in the Mulroney era, has a history as a political operative. He has repeatedly been called upon to oppose key objectives of the environment movement.
In 2002, Toronto's NOW Magazine reported on a meeting in that city by what proved to be a short-lived industry front group called the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions (CCRES). Baird made a passionate anti-Kyoto speech there, reported Greenpeace campaigner John Matlow in Toronto's NOW Magazine.
Last month, Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund) filed a lawsuit alleging that Baird broke the law when he directed mining companies to ignore their legal responsibility to report millions of kilograms of pollution from their operations under the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI).
"The law is clear: Mining companies in Canada are legally required to report the amount of chemicals they are releasing into the environment," said Justin Duncan, Staff Lawyer with Ecojustice. "Instead, at the direction of the Minister of Environment, these companies continue to flout the law by not reporting massive amounts of toxic tailings they dump into our environment each year." Baird, they say, is encouraging mining companies to hide the amount of toxic material they are dumping.
Professor Nancy Doubleday, of the Carleton University Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, says Baird has ghosts to face in the context of becoming environment minister. The first, she says, is the ghost of Walkerton, the Ontario town where eight people died due to Conservative deregulation and privatization of water inspection services.
"Although not causally tied to the deaths" there, she says he "had an opportunity to influence partisan initiatives and deregulatory fervour in the dismantling of (among other things) the environmental works of a province (Ontario) that had once led the country in matters of environmental quality."
She says he is also haunted by the ghost of light rail and urban responsibility. "Here we recall partisan intervention in intergovernmental relations, derailing the new deal for cities, where the majority of Canadians (for the first time in our history) now live."
Monday, December 10, 2007
Canada signing climate treaty without US like unilateral disarmament: Baird
I presume then that all those countries except the US who signed Kyoto were unilaterally disarming. Of course if Canada did actually unilaterally disarm the US might invade and force us to devote a reasonable amount of our budget to our armed forces to be used to help out US world hegemony.
Canada signing climate treaty without U.S. like 'unilateral disarmament': Baird
But opposition accuses Conservatives of intentionally sabotaging climate talks
Last Updated: Sunday, December 9, 2007 | 1:06 PM ET
The Canadian Press
Canada's environment minister has dismissed the notion of signing a climate-change treaty without the United States, saying it would handicap the Canadian economy without reversing greenhouse gas emissions.
Environment Minister John Baird, at the world climate summit in Bali on Sunday, has dismissed the notion of signing a climate-change treaty without the U.S., saying it would handicap the economy without reversing greenhouse gases.
(Ivanoh Demers/Canadian Press)
As the world gathers in Bali, Indonesia, to work toward a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, the Americans are already making it clear they will not submit to binding emissions targets.
In an interview with the Canadian Press, John Baird said Canada hopes to reach a deal within two years — but only if it applies targets for the first time to all major polluters.
He used a military analogy to suggest that Canada would be handicapping its economy by adopting environmental restrictions without being followed by its closest neighbour and trading partner.
Continue Article
"Our major economic competition is with the United States," Baird said in an interview before he arrived in Bali this weekend.
"You can have unilateral disarmament. Some might call it noble — but it's not very smart."
He derided the logic of, for example, closing a coal plant in Ontario, only to import more coal power from Michigan. The end result is lost Canadian jobs with no benefit to the atmosphere, he said.
Signs of a stalemate have cast an additional cloud as about 190 countries meet at a Bali summit already rife with increasingly dismal warnings about the state of the Earth's climate.
Greenhouse gas emissions continue to skyrocket — with the United States, China, and India leading the way. That's why Baird says the climate deal that replaces Kyoto after it expires in 2012 must hold those countries to binding targets, which Kyoto did not do.
Baird insisting on binding targets for all
Under Kyoto, signed under a previous Liberal government, Canada agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. However, Greenpeace said before the Bali conference that Canada's emissions had actually increased by 25 per cent by the end of 2005 — just before the Liberals fell to Stephen Harper's Conservatives in the 2006 election.
The Conservatives say Canada will insist on binding targets for all major polluters — or there's no deal.
The Tories' insistence on U.S. involvement is not the only sign of a stalemate in Bali. None of the big three polluters have offered any hint of accepting the targets that Baird calls a prerequisite for a deal.
Baird also contends that the world's greenhouse gas levels would surge even if all rich countries eliminated their emissions while poorer ones continued business as usual.
"That's an environmental Armageddon," he said.
Tories hope to pin failure on someone else: opposition critic
China, India, and the United States already account for more than half the world's emissions. Since none of those countries have shown any willingness to accept targets, Canada's opposition parties say it's pretty clear what the Tory strategy is.
But China and India are showing unprecedented willingness at the Bali summit to take some initial steps to fight climate change, said NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen, who accused the Conservatives of intentionally sabotaging climate talks.
"Baird is putting a gun to their head," Cullen said. "He'll scare them off. He's looking for someone else to own the failure [of negotiations]. It was [Liberal Leader] Stéphane Dion's fault before, now it's the fault of the Chinese."
On Tuesday, Dion told the House of Commons that he feared the Bali summit would falter without Canada's support, saying, "The government is telling the world it will do nothing unless everyone does something. This is a recipe for disaster."
Baird made it clear that Canada does not expect developing countries to adopt the same targets as rich ones.
The Tories believe that every country should face targets, but that those targets should be flexible to account for each country's own circumstances. Developing countries could have softer targets, Baird said.
"We [richer countries] can go faster and we can do more," he said. "But we need everybody acting."
Canada signing climate treaty without U.S. like 'unilateral disarmament': Baird
But opposition accuses Conservatives of intentionally sabotaging climate talks
Last Updated: Sunday, December 9, 2007 | 1:06 PM ET
The Canadian Press
Canada's environment minister has dismissed the notion of signing a climate-change treaty without the United States, saying it would handicap the Canadian economy without reversing greenhouse gas emissions.
Environment Minister John Baird, at the world climate summit in Bali on Sunday, has dismissed the notion of signing a climate-change treaty without the U.S., saying it would handicap the economy without reversing greenhouse gases.
(Ivanoh Demers/Canadian Press)
As the world gathers in Bali, Indonesia, to work toward a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, the Americans are already making it clear they will not submit to binding emissions targets.
In an interview with the Canadian Press, John Baird said Canada hopes to reach a deal within two years — but only if it applies targets for the first time to all major polluters.
He used a military analogy to suggest that Canada would be handicapping its economy by adopting environmental restrictions without being followed by its closest neighbour and trading partner.
Continue Article
"Our major economic competition is with the United States," Baird said in an interview before he arrived in Bali this weekend.
"You can have unilateral disarmament. Some might call it noble — but it's not very smart."
He derided the logic of, for example, closing a coal plant in Ontario, only to import more coal power from Michigan. The end result is lost Canadian jobs with no benefit to the atmosphere, he said.
Signs of a stalemate have cast an additional cloud as about 190 countries meet at a Bali summit already rife with increasingly dismal warnings about the state of the Earth's climate.
Greenhouse gas emissions continue to skyrocket — with the United States, China, and India leading the way. That's why Baird says the climate deal that replaces Kyoto after it expires in 2012 must hold those countries to binding targets, which Kyoto did not do.
Baird insisting on binding targets for all
Under Kyoto, signed under a previous Liberal government, Canada agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. However, Greenpeace said before the Bali conference that Canada's emissions had actually increased by 25 per cent by the end of 2005 — just before the Liberals fell to Stephen Harper's Conservatives in the 2006 election.
The Conservatives say Canada will insist on binding targets for all major polluters — or there's no deal.
The Tories' insistence on U.S. involvement is not the only sign of a stalemate in Bali. None of the big three polluters have offered any hint of accepting the targets that Baird calls a prerequisite for a deal.
Baird also contends that the world's greenhouse gas levels would surge even if all rich countries eliminated their emissions while poorer ones continued business as usual.
"That's an environmental Armageddon," he said.
Tories hope to pin failure on someone else: opposition critic
China, India, and the United States already account for more than half the world's emissions. Since none of those countries have shown any willingness to accept targets, Canada's opposition parties say it's pretty clear what the Tory strategy is.
But China and India are showing unprecedented willingness at the Bali summit to take some initial steps to fight climate change, said NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen, who accused the Conservatives of intentionally sabotaging climate talks.
"Baird is putting a gun to their head," Cullen said. "He'll scare them off. He's looking for someone else to own the failure [of negotiations]. It was [Liberal Leader] Stéphane Dion's fault before, now it's the fault of the Chinese."
On Tuesday, Dion told the House of Commons that he feared the Bali summit would falter without Canada's support, saying, "The government is telling the world it will do nothing unless everyone does something. This is a recipe for disaster."
Baird made it clear that Canada does not expect developing countries to adopt the same targets as rich ones.
The Tories believe that every country should face targets, but that those targets should be flexible to account for each country's own circumstances. Developing countries could have softer targets, Baird said.
"We [richer countries] can go faster and we can do more," he said. "But we need everybody acting."
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Dion, Layton rip Harper over Bali talks.
For a country that is supposedly concerned about the environment our government is down at the bottom of the pack. The only significant country that ranks lower than us is the US. Harper wants us to stay there. He sabotaged the Commonwealth environmental meeting and now he is setting up to do the same thing at Bali. Of course he will be a heroic figure at the next Bush sponsored talks.
Sunday » December 9 » 2007
Dion, Layton rip Harper over Bali talks
Mike Blanchfield
CanWest News Service
Sunday, December 09, 2007
OTTAWA -- The Harper government is deliberately sabotaging attempts to forge a new climate change agreement at the United Nations conference in Bali, Liberal opposition leader Stephane Dion charged Saturday.
Dion's criticism came after a leaked government document showed that Canada would stick firm to its position that binding emissions targets should apply to all countries, including major emitters such as China and India.
The document shows that the government is holding to the line that it staked out last month at the Commonwealth summit in Uganda that all countries should be brought on board at once on a new accord to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister John Baird say the government will not support any agreement that imposes targets on industrialized countries such as Canada, but lets other polluters off the hook.
In an interview with the CanWest News Service Saturday on the eve of his departure for Bali, Dion said the government's all or nothing approach is setting the stage for failure at the UN conference. He said there is nothing wrong with Canada accepting binding targets ahead of other countries.
"Canada should say, I am showing the example, I'm doing my part, do yours," said Dion.
"This is how you show leadership. What the government will do, it is no less than sabotage."
Dion said he will not try to conduct "parallel" negotiations because he does not formally represent Canada, but that he has a full slate of meetings already planned with those in attendance.
NDP leader Jack Layton also called on the Conservative government to "stop the blame game" and do more in Bali to find a solution.
"Liberal and Conservative governments have neglected the environment for far too long, leaving ordinary Canadians to suffer from their lack of action," Layton said Saturday in a statement.
"Today, I stand in solidarity with my community to demand Harper's Conservatives act now."
A one-paged document, obtained by the Climate Action Network, an international network of environmental advocates, lists nine factors that the federal government wants in a post-2012 agreement. The key factor calls or considerations for counties with "national circumstances" in order to not "unduly" burden the growth of any single country.
That language mirrors wording that Canada pushed the Commonwealth to adopt - over the objection of almost 50 other member countries that had been pushing for binding targets on industrialized countries.
"What we see in Bali now is the result of two years of a government that's reversed the position of Canada," said Dion.
In a letter published in the National Post on Friday, Baird said the government would accept absolute binding targets on emissions only if major emitters such as China and India are also on board.
"Eliminating emissions in one country but allowing them to skyrocket in another does nothing to reduce the global burden of harmful substances that contribute to climate change and pollute the air we breathe," wrote Baird, who arrives in Bali next week.
More than 180 countries are gathered in Bali to create a new plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
Canada is to press for binding emission targets for all major emitters, including industrialized developed nations and poorer, developing nations, such as India and China - a stance that is strongly opposed by environmental groups.
"To be asking countries with hundreds of millions of people in poverty (to accept binding targets) is not a position that is going to move along things here in Bali," said Dale Marshall, representative of the David Suzuki Foundation, a member of the action network.
"It is going to derail everything."
On Friday, Canada placed near the bottom of the pack in a survey by the non-profit research group Germanwatch, which published its third annual Climate Change Performance Index.
It compared the climate protection performances of 56 industrialized countries and emerging economies, that together account for more than 90 per cent of global emissions.
In the rankings, Canada placed 53rd in 2007 for combating emissions. China ranked at 40th while the United States was second last in 55th place.
Ottawa Citizen
© CanWest News Service 2007
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Sunday » December 9 » 2007
Dion, Layton rip Harper over Bali talks
Mike Blanchfield
CanWest News Service
Sunday, December 09, 2007
OTTAWA -- The Harper government is deliberately sabotaging attempts to forge a new climate change agreement at the United Nations conference in Bali, Liberal opposition leader Stephane Dion charged Saturday.
Dion's criticism came after a leaked government document showed that Canada would stick firm to its position that binding emissions targets should apply to all countries, including major emitters such as China and India.
The document shows that the government is holding to the line that it staked out last month at the Commonwealth summit in Uganda that all countries should be brought on board at once on a new accord to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister John Baird say the government will not support any agreement that imposes targets on industrialized countries such as Canada, but lets other polluters off the hook.
In an interview with the CanWest News Service Saturday on the eve of his departure for Bali, Dion said the government's all or nothing approach is setting the stage for failure at the UN conference. He said there is nothing wrong with Canada accepting binding targets ahead of other countries.
"Canada should say, I am showing the example, I'm doing my part, do yours," said Dion.
"This is how you show leadership. What the government will do, it is no less than sabotage."
Dion said he will not try to conduct "parallel" negotiations because he does not formally represent Canada, but that he has a full slate of meetings already planned with those in attendance.
NDP leader Jack Layton also called on the Conservative government to "stop the blame game" and do more in Bali to find a solution.
"Liberal and Conservative governments have neglected the environment for far too long, leaving ordinary Canadians to suffer from their lack of action," Layton said Saturday in a statement.
"Today, I stand in solidarity with my community to demand Harper's Conservatives act now."
A one-paged document, obtained by the Climate Action Network, an international network of environmental advocates, lists nine factors that the federal government wants in a post-2012 agreement. The key factor calls or considerations for counties with "national circumstances" in order to not "unduly" burden the growth of any single country.
That language mirrors wording that Canada pushed the Commonwealth to adopt - over the objection of almost 50 other member countries that had been pushing for binding targets on industrialized countries.
"What we see in Bali now is the result of two years of a government that's reversed the position of Canada," said Dion.
In a letter published in the National Post on Friday, Baird said the government would accept absolute binding targets on emissions only if major emitters such as China and India are also on board.
"Eliminating emissions in one country but allowing them to skyrocket in another does nothing to reduce the global burden of harmful substances that contribute to climate change and pollute the air we breathe," wrote Baird, who arrives in Bali next week.
More than 180 countries are gathered in Bali to create a new plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
Canada is to press for binding emission targets for all major emitters, including industrialized developed nations and poorer, developing nations, such as India and China - a stance that is strongly opposed by environmental groups.
"To be asking countries with hundreds of millions of people in poverty (to accept binding targets) is not a position that is going to move along things here in Bali," said Dale Marshall, representative of the David Suzuki Foundation, a member of the action network.
"It is going to derail everything."
On Friday, Canada placed near the bottom of the pack in a survey by the non-profit research group Germanwatch, which published its third annual Climate Change Performance Index.
It compared the climate protection performances of 56 industrialized countries and emerging economies, that together account for more than 90 per cent of global emissions.
In the rankings, Canada placed 53rd in 2007 for combating emissions. China ranked at 40th while the United States was second last in 55th place.
Ottawa Citizen
© CanWest News Service 2007
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Canada may undermine Bali proceedings
This is from the Calgary Sun. The US is obviously already undercutting the conference by saying outright that it will not commit to binding caps at present. Canada will go along with the US policy. Canada is in effect supporting the parallel Bush instigated talks.
Sun, December 9, 2007
U.S. not ready to commit
UPDATED: 2007-12-09 02:10:19 MST
Leaked document says Canada may undermine proceedings
By AP
BALI, Indonesia -- The U.S. will come up with its own plan to cut global-warming gases by mid-2008 and won't commit to mandatory caps at the UN's climate conference here, the chief U.S. negotiator said yesterday.
"We're not ready to do that here," said Harlan Watson, the State Department's senior climate negotiator and special representative.
"We're working on that, what our domestic contribution would be, and again we expect that sometime before the end of the Major Economies process."
That process of U.S.-led talks was inaugurated last September by President George W. Bush.
The president invited 16 other major economies such as the Europeans, Japan, China and India, to Washington to discuss a future international program of cutbacks in carbon dioxide and other emissions blamed for global warming.
Environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of using those parallel talks to subvert the long-running UN negotiations and the spirit of the binding Kyoto Protocol, which requires 36 industrial countries to make relatively modest cuts in "greenhouse" gases. The U.S. is the only major industrial country to have rejected Kyoto and its obligatory targets.
The U.S. leadership instead favours a more voluntary approach, in which individual countries determine what they can contribute to a global effort, without taking on obligations under the UN climate treaty.
Watson's comments reaffirmed the Bush administration views its own talks as the main event in discussions over climate change.
The European Union, on the other hand, has committed to binding emissions reductions of 20% by 2020.
Meanwhile, Climate Action Network Canada says a leaked federal document shows Canadian negotiators in Bali are under explicit instruction to undermine a fundamental principle of the Kyoto Protocol.
The alliance of environmental groups says the move is guaranteed to derail momentum as the Bali negotiations enter their critical final week.
"The leaked instructions direct Canadian negotiators to demand that poorer nations accept the same binding, absolute emission reduction targets as developed nations," the alliance said.
It said the Kyoto Protocol is built on the recognition that industrialized countries are largely responsible for the problem of climate change, and must take the lead in tackling it.
"Although countries such as China and India need to significantly slow their emissions growth, they should not, in the near term, be subject to the absolute emission reduction targets that are appropriate for industrialized countries," the alliance said.
"Canada's per-capita emissions and wealth are about 10 times higher than India's and five times higher than China's
Sun, December 9, 2007
U.S. not ready to commit
UPDATED: 2007-12-09 02:10:19 MST
Leaked document says Canada may undermine proceedings
By AP
BALI, Indonesia -- The U.S. will come up with its own plan to cut global-warming gases by mid-2008 and won't commit to mandatory caps at the UN's climate conference here, the chief U.S. negotiator said yesterday.
"We're not ready to do that here," said Harlan Watson, the State Department's senior climate negotiator and special representative.
"We're working on that, what our domestic contribution would be, and again we expect that sometime before the end of the Major Economies process."
That process of U.S.-led talks was inaugurated last September by President George W. Bush.
The president invited 16 other major economies such as the Europeans, Japan, China and India, to Washington to discuss a future international program of cutbacks in carbon dioxide and other emissions blamed for global warming.
Environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of using those parallel talks to subvert the long-running UN negotiations and the spirit of the binding Kyoto Protocol, which requires 36 industrial countries to make relatively modest cuts in "greenhouse" gases. The U.S. is the only major industrial country to have rejected Kyoto and its obligatory targets.
The U.S. leadership instead favours a more voluntary approach, in which individual countries determine what they can contribute to a global effort, without taking on obligations under the UN climate treaty.
Watson's comments reaffirmed the Bush administration views its own talks as the main event in discussions over climate change.
The European Union, on the other hand, has committed to binding emissions reductions of 20% by 2020.
Meanwhile, Climate Action Network Canada says a leaked federal document shows Canadian negotiators in Bali are under explicit instruction to undermine a fundamental principle of the Kyoto Protocol.
The alliance of environmental groups says the move is guaranteed to derail momentum as the Bali negotiations enter their critical final week.
"The leaked instructions direct Canadian negotiators to demand that poorer nations accept the same binding, absolute emission reduction targets as developed nations," the alliance said.
It said the Kyoto Protocol is built on the recognition that industrialized countries are largely responsible for the problem of climate change, and must take the lead in tackling it.
"Although countries such as China and India need to significantly slow their emissions growth, they should not, in the near term, be subject to the absolute emission reduction targets that are appropriate for industrialized countries," the alliance said.
"Canada's per-capita emissions and wealth are about 10 times higher than India's and five times higher than China's
Friday, November 30, 2007
Kyoto framework is still best hope for the world.
Anderson is probably correct but he should have added a caveat: only if signers actually keep their promises. The Liberal government signed the Kyoto accords but let emissions rise during their tenure. The Liberals take the moral high ground and then go on to make the environment worse. The Conservatives on the other hand have been blowing hot air from the beginning and the Bush, Harper, tag team will spend the time at Bali beating developing countries into submission. When the developing nations refuse to submit or participate in a rigged fight Canada and the US can go home champions. Hot air will continue to pollute the political and real world atmosphere.
Kyoto framework is still best hope for the world
Nov 30, 2007 04:30 AM
David Anderson
The major objective of President George Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Bali Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that begins Monday is to replace the emission reduction Kyoto targets for the developed countries with an agreement that also includes targets for the developing countries.
Unfortunately, by abandoning the Kyoto approach of starting global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with the developed industrial nations, Bush and Harper make the chances of getting the developing countries to accept emission reduction targets less likely, not more so.
The starting point for the developing countries is their firm and correct understanding that the increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past two centuries overwhelmingly has been caused by the use of fossil fuels in the developed countries of the world.
The global warming problem thus is a problem created by those developed countries, not by them. This belief then leads to the not unreasonable conclusion that if the atmosphere now has a dangerous level of greenhouse gases, then those responsible for those emissions should be the first to step up to the plate and do something about it.
The position of Bush and Harper, by contrast, is not based on that increase in the contamination level of the past two centuries, but rather on the emissions currently occurring. It is not a two-century buildup of the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that they focus on; instead, they talk of the current rate of flow of contaminants into the atmosphere. Thus, the responsibility of the developed nations for the acute nature of the current problem is not, in their view, relevant to the current question of reducing emission levels today.
We have a dialogue of the deaf. Canada and the U.S. are talking of current flows of greenhouse gas emissions, while the developing countries are talking of accumulated stocks of greenhouse gas emissions. As long as each ignores the argument of the other, the likelihood of agreement is nil. One is talking of the contaminated pond, the other of the contaminating stream.
The Kyoto process bridged this gap by introducing a staged approach to emission reductions. The developed countries that ratified (essentially the European Union countries, Japan and Canada under the Chrétien government) agreed that the developed nations of the world should be the first to implement serious reductions. Then, after their good faith in dealing with a problem that they were responsible for had been demonstrated through significant reductions in emissions, discussions would take place on emission reduction programs for developing countries as well.
The key was overcoming the suspicion of developing countries that international greenhouse gas emission reduction programs would be used to hamper the development of their economies and their efforts to provide a better life for their citizens.
An important component of the developing countries' argument was the issue of international fairness. The atmosphere surrounding our world is equally necessary to the survival of each and every one of us. Therefore, fairness dictates that we each have an equal share of this common resource. Why then, they ask, are the per capita emissions of the developed countries so flagrantly in excess of the global averages and why are the developed countries not reducing their per capita emissions to that global average?
The question of equal share of the common global resource was sidelined by the agreement of the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions, as the reduction targets they accepted implicitly recognized the validity of the fairness claim of the developing countries.
Without Kyoto, this fairness or moral question will come once more to the fore. Indeed, the failure to achieve the Kyoto emission reduction targets that we in the developed world committed ourselves to 10 years ago will increase the suspicion of the developing countries that emission targets are not in their interests, and make this issue even more difficult to handle than ever.
The Kyoto Protocol was the result of extremely difficult negotiations, took a very long time, was a compromise, and is by no means perfect. Unfortunately, it was and still is the best the international community, working together, has been able to come up with.
The central problem with Harper's and Bush's proposed changes for a system with emission targets for all countries is that if they return to that starting point and ignore the difficult factors that Kyoto took into account through so many painstaking compromises, they will likely achieve far less in Bali than was achieved at Kyoto. The Kyoto approach, imperfect though it may be, is still the world's best hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Anderson is director of the Guelph Institute of the Environment at the University of Guelph. He served from 1999 to 2004 as the federal minister responsible for the climate change file, and during that time represented Canada at the international meetings on climate change.
Kyoto framework is still best hope for the world
Nov 30, 2007 04:30 AM
David Anderson
The major objective of President George Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Bali Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that begins Monday is to replace the emission reduction Kyoto targets for the developed countries with an agreement that also includes targets for the developing countries.
Unfortunately, by abandoning the Kyoto approach of starting global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with the developed industrial nations, Bush and Harper make the chances of getting the developing countries to accept emission reduction targets less likely, not more so.
The starting point for the developing countries is their firm and correct understanding that the increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past two centuries overwhelmingly has been caused by the use of fossil fuels in the developed countries of the world.
The global warming problem thus is a problem created by those developed countries, not by them. This belief then leads to the not unreasonable conclusion that if the atmosphere now has a dangerous level of greenhouse gases, then those responsible for those emissions should be the first to step up to the plate and do something about it.
The position of Bush and Harper, by contrast, is not based on that increase in the contamination level of the past two centuries, but rather on the emissions currently occurring. It is not a two-century buildup of the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that they focus on; instead, they talk of the current rate of flow of contaminants into the atmosphere. Thus, the responsibility of the developed nations for the acute nature of the current problem is not, in their view, relevant to the current question of reducing emission levels today.
We have a dialogue of the deaf. Canada and the U.S. are talking of current flows of greenhouse gas emissions, while the developing countries are talking of accumulated stocks of greenhouse gas emissions. As long as each ignores the argument of the other, the likelihood of agreement is nil. One is talking of the contaminated pond, the other of the contaminating stream.
The Kyoto process bridged this gap by introducing a staged approach to emission reductions. The developed countries that ratified (essentially the European Union countries, Japan and Canada under the Chrétien government) agreed that the developed nations of the world should be the first to implement serious reductions. Then, after their good faith in dealing with a problem that they were responsible for had been demonstrated through significant reductions in emissions, discussions would take place on emission reduction programs for developing countries as well.
The key was overcoming the suspicion of developing countries that international greenhouse gas emission reduction programs would be used to hamper the development of their economies and their efforts to provide a better life for their citizens.
An important component of the developing countries' argument was the issue of international fairness. The atmosphere surrounding our world is equally necessary to the survival of each and every one of us. Therefore, fairness dictates that we each have an equal share of this common resource. Why then, they ask, are the per capita emissions of the developed countries so flagrantly in excess of the global averages and why are the developed countries not reducing their per capita emissions to that global average?
The question of equal share of the common global resource was sidelined by the agreement of the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions, as the reduction targets they accepted implicitly recognized the validity of the fairness claim of the developing countries.
Without Kyoto, this fairness or moral question will come once more to the fore. Indeed, the failure to achieve the Kyoto emission reduction targets that we in the developed world committed ourselves to 10 years ago will increase the suspicion of the developing countries that emission targets are not in their interests, and make this issue even more difficult to handle than ever.
The Kyoto Protocol was the result of extremely difficult negotiations, took a very long time, was a compromise, and is by no means perfect. Unfortunately, it was and still is the best the international community, working together, has been able to come up with.
The central problem with Harper's and Bush's proposed changes for a system with emission targets for all countries is that if they return to that starting point and ignore the difficult factors that Kyoto took into account through so many painstaking compromises, they will likely achieve far less in Bali than was achieved at Kyoto. The Kyoto approach, imperfect though it may be, is still the world's best hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Anderson is director of the Guelph Institute of the Environment at the University of Guelph. He served from 1999 to 2004 as the federal minister responsible for the climate change file, and during that time represented Canada at the international meetings on climate change.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Opposition barred from Canadian delegation to Bali climate change talks.
The Harper government just can't stand opposition and will do anything possible prevent it. The government apparently will take some other people with them to advise them. I assume this will be at taxpayer expense. They are unmentionable apparently but I would venture to guess that they are supporters of Harper's positions.
The opposition will have to go to Bali at their own expense a trip that will not come that cheap. Even when there they will only get to go to some of the meetings. Perhaps they can lobby with local and international media to criticise Harper's position and show that Harper does not represent all Canadians, in fact probably not even a majority. At least Harper will not be able to hobknob with John Howard at Bali. He will be history. Let us hope that soon Harper will be history as well.
Opposition barred from Canadian delegation to Bali climate change talks
Last Updated: Thursday, November 22, 2007 | 3:58 PM ET
CBC News
The Conservative government has broken a long-standing tradition by deciding not to invite opposition MPs to the United Nations' major climate change meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia.
The Environment Ministry told the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois on Wednesday that they will not be part of the official Canadian delegation at the Climate Change Conference, which will include talks about a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.
Environment Minister John Baird told the House of Commons on Thursday that he didn't want a partisan political debate to take place at the forum.
But Liberal MP David McGuinty called the move censorship. Canadian governments have for years invited opposition critics and MPs to major international meetings.
"I thought I had a responsibility as the official Opposition critic for the environment, who ran elected to work in this field. I kind of thought I had a special responsibility to represent millions of Canadians who have a competing point of view," McGuinty said Wednesday.
On Thursday, McGuinty accused the government of wanting to "hide the facts" that they have no climate change plans for Canada
But Baird shot back at McGuinty, saying that it has been 160 days since he asked him a question in the House of Commons about the environment.
"And you know what his question is? Why can't I come on that nice trip with you."
The Environment Ministry has said opposition MPs could still pay their own way and attend public discussions, although they would not be awarded any of the privileges that come with being part of an official delegation, which includes access to briefings and some of the talks.
The Conservatives invited opposition MPs to the 2006 UN environmental conference in Nairobi and during the event, the opposition lambasted then environment minister Rona Ambrose on her government's environmental policies. Others joined in the attack, including France's environment minister.
Nathan Cullen, the NDP's environment critic, said Baird brought up Nairobi when he stopped him in the House of Commons on Wednesday to tell him about the Bali decision.
"He said he looked at what happened in Africa and Nairobi at the last meeting and he said he is worried about criticism," Cullen said. "And his government has a lot to be criticized for."
Opposition leaders have criticized the Conservatives for their environmental plan, which does not see Canada meeting its Kyoto emissions targets in time. The plan, laid out in April, has Canada reaching its targets by 2020 or 2025, instead of 2012, the year laid out in the international treaty to curb climate change.
Opposition had chance to give input: Baird
Baird said the opposition has already had its opportunity to give its advice and opinions on the environment during debates and votes in the House of Commons.
"The House of Commons did vote just over a month ago on the speech from the throne where we set out the agenda of the environment and that speech and that direction was endorsed by the House of Commons."
But the Bloc said the opposition still has to have its chance to participate in the climate conference.
"Excluding the opposition members is essentially rejecting the majority's views," Bloc MP Bernard Bigras said.
Combined, the opposition parties and independent candidates hold a majority of seats (178) in the House. The Conservatives have 126, while four seats are vacant.
Other Canadians will be invited
The Conservatives said they will bring a number of Canadians to the conference with them to advise during the talks, but they have not said who these Canadians will be.
The David Suzuki Foundation has confirmed the organization did not get an invitation, but plans to send members as official conference observers. The Sierra Club of Canada plans to do the same.
"To me this is just another example of this government trying to control the message on climate change," said Emily Moorehouse of the Sierra Club.
With files from the Canadian Press
The opposition will have to go to Bali at their own expense a trip that will not come that cheap. Even when there they will only get to go to some of the meetings. Perhaps they can lobby with local and international media to criticise Harper's position and show that Harper does not represent all Canadians, in fact probably not even a majority. At least Harper will not be able to hobknob with John Howard at Bali. He will be history. Let us hope that soon Harper will be history as well.
Opposition barred from Canadian delegation to Bali climate change talks
Last Updated: Thursday, November 22, 2007 | 3:58 PM ET
CBC News
The Conservative government has broken a long-standing tradition by deciding not to invite opposition MPs to the United Nations' major climate change meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia.
The Environment Ministry told the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois on Wednesday that they will not be part of the official Canadian delegation at the Climate Change Conference, which will include talks about a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.
Environment Minister John Baird told the House of Commons on Thursday that he didn't want a partisan political debate to take place at the forum.
But Liberal MP David McGuinty called the move censorship. Canadian governments have for years invited opposition critics and MPs to major international meetings.
"I thought I had a responsibility as the official Opposition critic for the environment, who ran elected to work in this field. I kind of thought I had a special responsibility to represent millions of Canadians who have a competing point of view," McGuinty said Wednesday.
On Thursday, McGuinty accused the government of wanting to "hide the facts" that they have no climate change plans for Canada
But Baird shot back at McGuinty, saying that it has been 160 days since he asked him a question in the House of Commons about the environment.
"And you know what his question is? Why can't I come on that nice trip with you."
The Environment Ministry has said opposition MPs could still pay their own way and attend public discussions, although they would not be awarded any of the privileges that come with being part of an official delegation, which includes access to briefings and some of the talks.
The Conservatives invited opposition MPs to the 2006 UN environmental conference in Nairobi and during the event, the opposition lambasted then environment minister Rona Ambrose on her government's environmental policies. Others joined in the attack, including France's environment minister.
Nathan Cullen, the NDP's environment critic, said Baird brought up Nairobi when he stopped him in the House of Commons on Wednesday to tell him about the Bali decision.
"He said he looked at what happened in Africa and Nairobi at the last meeting and he said he is worried about criticism," Cullen said. "And his government has a lot to be criticized for."
Opposition leaders have criticized the Conservatives for their environmental plan, which does not see Canada meeting its Kyoto emissions targets in time. The plan, laid out in April, has Canada reaching its targets by 2020 or 2025, instead of 2012, the year laid out in the international treaty to curb climate change.
Opposition had chance to give input: Baird
Baird said the opposition has already had its opportunity to give its advice and opinions on the environment during debates and votes in the House of Commons.
"The House of Commons did vote just over a month ago on the speech from the throne where we set out the agenda of the environment and that speech and that direction was endorsed by the House of Commons."
But the Bloc said the opposition still has to have its chance to participate in the climate conference.
"Excluding the opposition members is essentially rejecting the majority's views," Bloc MP Bernard Bigras said.
Combined, the opposition parties and independent candidates hold a majority of seats (178) in the House. The Conservatives have 126, while four seats are vacant.
Other Canadians will be invited
The Conservatives said they will bring a number of Canadians to the conference with them to advise during the talks, but they have not said who these Canadians will be.
The David Suzuki Foundation has confirmed the organization did not get an invitation, but plans to send members as official conference observers. The Sierra Club of Canada plans to do the same.
"To me this is just another example of this government trying to control the message on climate change," said Emily Moorehouse of the Sierra Club.
With files from the Canadian Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)