Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Corporate Canada braces for new rules on emissions

SHAWN MCCARTHY

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:00 AM EST 19/12/07

Global climate treaty will put new pressure on companies; 'This is just the start' ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Bob ImamI from Canada writes: Chretien did nothing, Martin Did Nothing, Harper will hopefully do nothing.

    This Bali oblivion is be an ineffectual as Kyoto... furthermore with the increased cold temperatures it will fall into utter disrepute.

    CO2 is good for the environment and it is the less important GHG.. Water vapor is the most effective GHG and the greenies love to ignore that.
  2. Aaron V from Canada writes: That would be a great post Bob if the facts about climate change didn't refute every last thing you've said.
  3. Neiland Robert from Canada writes: I don't care for Kyoto ... BUT

    Mr. Harper... Please initiate a ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE MANDATE, and a grant/subsidy program for homeowners to install SOLAR POWER GENERATION. And while you do this, ensure YOU DO NOT... I repeat DO NOT introduce a CARBON TAX.

    If I am taxed one additional penny I will likely march on Ottawa heavily armed.
  4. Duncan K from Canada writes: I call for an escalating CARBON TAX. But I would also like to see it offset by a reduction in personal income tax. It is economically efficient and for all the Kyoto opponents will not see our money leaving the country. The sooner we start the better.
  5. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea on how the planet will be saved, here's a little taste of the actual mechanism being proposed:

    Quote "Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.

    "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.""Unquote.
    http://www.lttonline.co.uk/lttxtraarticle.php?uid=7064

    Get that? Democracy and the will of the people are less important than some half baked socialist scheme based on politics, not science?
    I guess that explains WHY it's not based on science.
  6. Basser Basser from Canada writes: Interesting that 1) the business community ( a few anyway) want more clarity and are saying just give us the rules ( they have been saying this for several years from my reading knowledge).. 2) That even with all the silly wasteful posturing by the current Government, that they Will just start doing more to cut as they signed the new pact. Bottom line. They will cut, this is a recognized problem. The World will force the issue, and the Feds will start to do pretty much what they said they would not do 6-8 months ago.. Funny eh?. And we could have saved all the BS, Political Lecturing and ill will put forth by this Government and be where we are almost exactly at this point anyway.. The only difference?? We have harmed relations further with the rest of the Democratic nation's except a very few, and those few are isolated from the group anyway.. Good show Conservatives, Good show,, What ya gonna do for an encore
  7. George S from Toronto, Canada writes: Without a doubt these reductions in emissions are going to have a profound affect on our economy but it isn't going to kill it, it will just alter it signifacantly. There will have to be a lot of jobs created to construct all the infrastructure needed to make this a society much more dependent on public transit then the polluting automobile. There was a time in North American when it was much more common for most cities, even medium sized cities like St. Catharines for example, to have a streetcar system. The automobile industry aggressively lobbied most cities, beside a few hold-outs, to get rid of its streecar infrastructure and make people more dependent on the automobile to get around. Yes, the automotive sector provides a lot of jobs, but, I am sure what we create to replace this culture will need a lot of jobs to manufacture it and to keep it running. it will just be a lot more environmentally friendly then everybody having a polluting car.
  8. Awash in Cash from Vote-Rich Ontario, Canada writes:

    Basser Basser--

    Andrew Coyne had a theory that if a dirty job needs to be done, it's best done by the party that doesn't seem to relish it.

    Hence, it was easier to have the libs slash and burn the budget/deficit than the tories. One sensed that Chretien/Martin hated to cut back, therefore only did what they must.

    The same will happen re GHG reductions.

    The CPC have made it clear they hate the Kyoto process. Therefore, when the actual dirty work gets done by the CPC, there will be a sense that the pain is the minimum necessary, regardless of the cost.

    Dion's problem is that he seems positively delighted with the prospect of slashing GHG, and the unpleasant side-effects. Nobody will trust him not to 'overdo' the damages with his zeal.

    In other words, if something difficult is to be imposed on you, do you prefer:

    1) I really hate to do this, but....

    or

    2) Finally!! Let me get to it!!! Where's your money??
  9. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Basser, Baird was insisting on a agreement that would apply to all polluters. How will closing clean industries in Canada, such as the Ontario auto plants, and moving that production to dirty unregulated plants in China result in a net gain for the planet's environment?
    If it will result in less pollution, you go first, shut the auto plants in Ontario, the same ones that Martin was going to exempt from Kyoto.
  10. Dan Green from Palm Beach Gardens Florida, United States writes: I think we all know, we have to clean up emmissions. That means, everything is going to become more expensive. That means the Chinese and the Indians, cannot keep pace, as their primary role is to pull their masses, out of poverty. That means we will stop making widgets and buy widgets from them. The Ruskies will be odd man out, they will do whatever they want, and become a state run, ressource power house.
  11. Wayne Arnold from Achern, Germany writes: Buy Carbon-Credits like India, EU and you don,t have to do anything. This scam is coming to lite
  12. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: The lower emissions standards may not be such a bad thing, as long as there is no carbon tax, no rationing, and no carbon credits (what a crock!). When the diesel emissions standards starting taking effect in the 90's (for NOx, S and particulates, not CO2) all the OEM's complained that it would make costs increase to a level that would be untenable....well, now after 4 emissions steps in north america, a much better product has emerged with less polution, higher quality, and higher fuel economy at just slightly more cost (adjusted). Innovation and technology advancement is what north america does best. As long as the emissions regulations are handled in a step-wise fashion, I think the outcome could be very positive for north america's economy.
  13. Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: People will inevitably lose their jobs in high emission sectors over this. If we were to draw a straight line from where we are now in overall emissions and where we have to be in 2050, we would have to reduce our emissions 2.7% a year. That would leave us around 2% above 1990 targets in 2020. In Bali, they say we have to be around 25% to 40% below 1990 by 2020 to stave off the worst effects of climate change. This is a daunting task for us in just 12 short years. I don't envy any government that has to address this regardless of their political stripes. It will inevitably lead to protests and even political suicide. Certainly some jobs will be created by "greening" but will it offset the losses in 12 years?
  14. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: a carbon tax would hurt the poor the most, as all the costs would be downloaded.
  15. Doug from BC from Canada writes: And the people in Ontario & Quebec were whining about a high dollar killing their industry. Just wait until this kicks in.
  16. G Cyler from Saskaville, Canada writes: All Baird needs to do is call his dog/cat/hamster "Bali" and nothing more. Hey, it's the Canadian (i.e. Liberal) way.
  17. Basser Basser from Hamilton, Canada writes: AWASh.. Save the Conservastive Government as the "Saint that does all the tough stuff line".. That one has been used and used over and over again.... Snore.. That just is not true. Who slashed and burned on the Federal Budgets during the 90's because we were running large deficits... The Liberals... Now, I see though that this will be the new Conservative line.. Well, we are going to do this because no one else would and we are going to give the tough medicine and save all of us... We are Saints.. BS.. They are going to do it because.. in plain site, they have embarassed themselves with the stance they have taken and have been steamrolled over by World Public opinion. They are loud mouth Laggerd's way behind the issue, no where near the front as they will try very very hard to sell the public on over the next 6-8 weeks. The GiG is up.
  18. Henri-Leon Solomon from New York via Montreal, United States writes: Dear Bob ImamI:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/weather/12/13/warm.weather.ap/index.html

    I understand your position and beliefs. But please, at the very least, keep an open mind moving forward. There is in fact broad consensus that climate change is a reality. The disagreements only concern how (or in your case: whether) we should respond.
  19. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...yep....right on schedule...watch for big business to start making 'price increase' noises...
  20. Basser Basser from Hamilton, Canada writes: Gopher.. To my knowledge the Atmoshere of the earth doesn't really react to one nation battling another as to who cut's and who doesn't. What I am fairly sure about is the atmoshphere will slowly react to less over-all co2 being loaded into it.. So, by that stake, whether we wait for the "Bad Guy's" to cut emmissions or not is an empty self serving bargaining tool. Bottom line is, we have to cut, we are going to cut, and business will do just fine. There will even be alot of business that get's their start based on cutting emission technology.. The sky is not falling for the business folk. In fact several want the cuts and rules to just get started so they can go forward. Those are the leaders. It's old news that the Auto industry and Oil industry are running scared. Well, ya, But what do you do?. Just burry your head?? Gotta deal with it. And.. It's going to be dealt with, as I said, the Conservative are being dragged kicking and screeming..
  21. Henri-Leon Solomon from New York via Montreal, United States writes: By the way, Bob, that CNN link was not meant as a climate change proof. The proof is a much longer-term, methodical analysis available in scientific journals. The link is simply to disprove your sole argument (which, even if true, would not unravel the broad array of empirical evidence) that the temperature has been colder this year. It has in fact been warmer.
  22. J Law from Canada writes: If China and India's GHG are less dangerous that ours why don't we just use the same GHG as they do?
  23. Basser Basser from Hamilton, Canada writes: WOW! Someone is using CNN to prove a point??? WOW!
  24. Awash in Cash from Vote-Rich Ontario, Canada writes:

    Basser Basser--

    Read my post before you go into 'auto-diss' mode.

    I made the point that the LPC were best suited for budget cuts.

    Since you don't read, I'll say it again just incase this imprints on your brain:

    If a dirty job needs to be done, hire the guy that hates to do it, not the guy who relishes it.

    Baird will make some inevitably painful cuts to GHG production, but he's made it clear it hurts him to do it.

    People will trust that he will be prudent about the necessary pain.

    Dion, on the other hand, creates the impression that he would be THRILLED to destroy industry and resources, sending half our GDP to China.

    This impression about Dion will hurt the LPC bigtime, especially when Baird's 'measured' policies start to sting.
  25. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Green Party plan calls for tax shifting , tax carbon and pollution, not jobs and income .

    When we implement a carbon tax , we add that tax to the cost of shipping chaep crap from China , making imported goods cost more , open markets for local manufacturing .

    Fighting climate change isn't doom and gloom , climate change is.
  26. Basser Basser from Hamilton, Canada writes: PETER kAUCHUCK. Yep, let's say the sky is falling. Massive layoff's Political strife, business imploding.. What happens if we go status quo. ,,, Masiive layoffs, Political chaos, business imploding because of drastic changes in climate. Soaring health costs. Ummmm , I'm picking the save the environment type of disaster over pander to current ways of business disaster.. You get it?.. It's a disaster period. Pick which one!
  27. Basser Basser from Hamilton, Canada writes: AWSH. Ah yes the insults start.. In true Conservative style. Truth is write what you mean.. not expect people to know what you imply. I do read. I read alot of things every day.Insulting , only maked you ( the insulter) look silly.
  28. bill wilson from Taiwan writes: We spend billions and billions of dollars on stupid wars like Afghanistan. How about some real defence. The effort to reduce CO2 emissions will create lots of jobs and opportunities if we are smart enough to look at this as an opportunity.
  29. Basser Basser from Hamilton, Canada writes: AWSH Also you might start with the LPC short form. Until only recently I had now idea what you were refering to. I even thought it was Progressive Conservatives at one point. Assumming people know what you mean is not alway's the best way to communicate and be sure your point was taken. Spell it out for all us less intelligent types :)
  30. Awash in Cash from Vote-Rich Ontario, Canada writes:

    Basser Basser--

    I wasn't insulting you--I thought I was making a fair assessment of your powers of perception.

    Why should I clarify my posts when you don't even read them?

    BTW-your name is really just Basser. It seems you have diplopia (double vision). This probably explains your complete ignorance of anything written.

    Well, gotta go...seeya (double) later...;)
  31. John Calgary from Canada writes: Wouldn't Big polluters simply move their operations to Countries that do not have to reduce emissions (also bonus of cheaper workforce). Maybe they will receive some money from Government for reducing emissions here by moving all operations overseas as well. Will this not also force the Government to halt all immigration as People = Pollution. As jobs are cut from the "big polluters" there will be less taxes and will result in less Government jobs. I have a hard time believing someone is going to magically appear and offer everyone out of work from this a job making windmills. Recession here we come....
  32. J Law from Canada writes: The chocolate ketchup sort of gets around. First Bob ImamI and now Basser Basser had it on their breakfast eggs. Look at ho wexcited it gets them . . . I think cause I never read their comments, I just notice how many they post.
  33. Keith Mills from Guelph, writes: The Ontario Liberals were elected 4 years ago and promised to shutdown the coal fired electricity generators by 2007. These coal-fired generators are deemed to be the largest source of pollution and green house gases in the province. It is estimated that 6 to 10 people a year die as a direct consequence of the operation of these coal fired generators. So why are they still running and why is it estimated that they need to be operational until at least 2014? And possibly maintained on standby for years after 2014?

    Many reasons why these need to be operated. First to maintain a secure supply of electricity in the province. Without a secure supply of electricity many more people will die annually; as indirectly happens during all extensive blackouts. Secondly because the Ontario economy relies on the secure source of electrical power.

    The above example is how what on the surface appeared to be a simple solution to cut green house gas emissions in Ontario is expected to take 11 years of planning and implementation. Another 7 years before we will know if the plan is viable.

    I applaud our federal government for sticking to its guns on this issue because they may be the only ones with a clear picture of just what it might take to achieve the desired results. The Ontario government is proof that making promises without proper analysis, risk assessment, social, financial and economic considerations is nothing more than hot air. And lord knows we don't need any more "HOT AIR".
  34. Concerned Observer from Canada writes: • Joe Gopher, you wrote:"... Baird was insisting on a agreement that would apply to all polluters. How will closing clean industries in Canada, such as the Ontario auto plants, and moving that production to dirty unregulated plants in China result in a net gain for the planet's environment? If it will result in less pollution, you go first, shut the auto plants in Ontario, the same ones that Martin was going to exempt from Kyoto. --------------------------------------------- I am surprised, that you don't you consider such positive option for Canada as mass replacement of gas guzzling vehicles by emerging hydrogen -fueled ones. The world class manufacturers work hard on finishing their prototypes and already made significant progress. According to this month's news even Oshawa has entered the international competition and started testing its 2007 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell Car on the road. I believe, they'll finish these tests successfully before the clean hydrogen infrastructure will be in place. We have enormous clean energy resources, but their exploitation is disproportional to our future needs. Just in the wind power Canada is believed to be the second windiest country in the world (behind Greenland), not to mention all remaining renewables. Guess, who will be blamed for such discrepancy, when we continue wasting that clean treasure, while subsidizing the dirty one?
  35. Blue Sky from Canada writes: All the protestors and supporters of Kyoto...Bali please resign from your jobs now. Please make room for the people that will need jobs, after layoffs thanks to the biggest scam on earth being committed to by Canada.
  36. Neiland Robert from Canada writes: Joe Gopher from Canada submits the following quote: "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says.

    Joe... that is a very dangerous sentiment indeed. I was quite surprised to see Canada's position on the major emitters fail largely in part to Baird. I will be watching this quite closely.

    This may be a spark that ignites some serious discourse amongst taxpayers. Will Baird continue to serve under the current government? What will the official government position and reaction be to this "development"?

    I question whether the UN and IPCC have become a little too powerful... But I digress, Democracy shall stand. If the will of the majority of Canadians is served, then so be it....but I have yet to see a referendum on what we believe, and what the course of action should be.

    When issues become so inflated that a comparison of importance betweenn the environment and democracy come into question ... I suggest that we are living in the beginning in a very dangerous time.
  37. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Neiland Robert from Canada writes: I question whether the UN and IPCC have become a little too powerful...

    >>>

    For years we've been hearing the UN derided as obsolete and ineffectual due to their inability to take action or to establish effectual consensus... now that they have finally been able to wrangle a compromise agreement and establish a consensus you are wondering whether they have become too powerful?? This seems odd, to say the least.

    The problems human beings are creating are global in scope, and therefore require some kind of global body to address them, IMHO.
  38. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: Basser Basser from Hamilton, Canada writes: Gopher.. To my knowledge the Atmoshere of the earth doesn't really react to one nation battling another as to who cut's and who doesn't.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No the atmosphere doesn't know which nation is polluting but it does know if the net amount of pollution increases. China's industries are less regulated and dirtier than ours. If we agree to a treaty that will have the effect of moving production from clean Canadian industry to dirty Chinese industry there will be a net increase in pollution.
    That is why Baird insisted on an agreement that included everyone.
    Imposing environmental regulations or treaties on one country and not another will have the effect of driving production from the regulated to the non regulated country.
    It's a fairly simple concept, though apparently not simple enough for most environmentalists to grasp.
  39. D G from Toronto, Canada writes: Bring back the electric car (and seriously promote it) - that would be one great place to start! If the big car companies hadn't killed the program (against the protests of nearly everyone who had one of the cars), by now the percentage of electric cars on our roads could be huge which in turn would obviously decrease pollution.

    Who Killed the Electric Car was a great documentary for anyone who hasn't seen it. I'm not saying it's flawless but it's an interesting watch.
  40. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Bob ImamI from Canada writes: Chretien did nothing, Martin Did Nothing, "

    Mostly because after signing Kyoto, they spent the 15 months fending off Conservatives who spent the time stalling government, running attack ads and generally bringing the process of governing to a halt in preparation for the elections.

    "Harper will hopefully do nothing."

    Well, not entirely nothing. Despite lack of opposition, in the 24 months he's been in office, he's managed a few fiat decissions by control of the bureaucracy to 'fulfill' some pledges to special interest groups, and he's made plenty of empty promises but yes... he essentuially wasted the last two years.

    Maybe now he'll stop running around with 'his thumb in his bum and his mind in neutral'.
  41. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Joe Gopher from Canada writes: "that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people."

    Absolutely. When you run up against limits to the 'life support systems' it hardly enourages a 'free for all'. Rational people sttart thinking about how to fairly distribute the rights (per capita) instead of trying to fight for some to have free access while others die from lack.

    "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."

    Certainly the greed of the few cannot be allowed at the expense of the many. This requires international agreement and full compliance under law.
  42. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Blue Sky from Canada writes: All the protestors and supporters of Kyoto...Bali please resign from your jobs now. Please make room for the people that will need jobs, after layoffs thanks to the biggest scam on earth being committed to by Canada. "

    Non sequitur. Please educate yourself. Improving sustainability and efficiency will increase jobs, not cost them if done right. And regardless of Kyoto, the challenge for this generation is to make sustainable economies. The days of 'unlimited resources' is history. Not even the climate is proof against an industrial based society of 6 billion humans.
  43. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "John Calgary from Canada writes: Wouldn't Big polluters simply move their operations to Countries that do not have to reduce emissions (also bonus of cheaper workforce). "

    Bullcrap. We send the work to China already because of lower wages. Emissions reductions won't change that economic fact. Most reductions (such as replacing aging coal plants with modern high efficiency ones) will actually retain jobs and companies will have emerging markets in the developing world for any low emissions technology they develop. As developing nations emerge they will adopt the BEST technology to build. We already sell most high efficiency power turbines to India and China as they are willing to buy them while 'rust belt' indifference rules the developed world.
  44. Comments are Closed from Toronto, Canada writes: Boo hoo, government interference in the honest and noble auto sector. I remember when the North American economy was predicted to collapse due to the catalytic converter regulations. Or how about the THB predictions that the housing market in Toronto was finished due to a petty basement insulation requirement. I don't know why the media repeats this baloney, sort of like listening to criminal lawyers.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top