My comments posted to:
http://policywiki.theglobeandmail.com/tiki-index.php?page=Carbon+Capture+Briefing+Note
Canada can not couple its efforts to reduce GHG emission to the United States, whether with respect to CCS technology or otherwise. For one, the sources of GHG are different and these differences have a direct impact on the feasibility of such technologies as CCS. This issue was discussed in the Toronto Star article, “Carbon capture no silver bullet for tar sands”, 27 Feb.’09, Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF Canada – vis.: “Specifically, the science tells us that it may be technically feasible (though exceedingly expensive) to capture 90 per cent of the carbon emitted by a new coal-fired generator, but just 10 per cent of the greenhouse gases associated with oil from tar sands.”
For another reason, of course, you get statements like Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s saying that Canada’s hand’s had been tied regarding taking action to reduce GHG’s because of President’ Bush’s position. In other words, Harper’s Mea Culpa on failure to properly address the GW was essentially “The devil made me do it!”.
Clearly, we as Canadians can not allow this to happen. By coupling our efforts we will in effect abdicate our responsibility to clean up our own act. It is fallacy to think that if coupled we will be able to tell the US how to do things or we will be able to implement any policies that would address our specific problems unless it is a benefit to the Americans.
Also, President G.W. Brush’s position was, it seems to me, to be: don’t worry science will save us. It may be that somewhere down the road there may be some kind of scientific breakthrough or development that will save the world from global warming and/or its effects. But, given the real, and present, potential for cataclysmic disaster worldwide, certainly we must take a course of action that we, at this point in time, know will have a real and meaningful impact.
We simply cannot afford to put all our hopes in the possibility of future scientific developments. That is not to say that we should not, at the same time, pursue this future scientific salvation and do so rigorously. But, to put all our hopes in this is, to me, to say the least, not prudent. CCS is an attractive idea suggesting that we may continue our activities “steady as she goes” and avoid having to take the harsh steps that will, in fact, have a meaningful reduction on GHG’s. However, if we place all our hopes on this and this idea does not come to fruition, we’re doomed.
On the other hand, with the economic downturn and the governments looking to stimulate the economy it is an excellent time to commence such projects. After all, we cannot expect that everyone who loses their job can transfer to bridge building or other infrastructure projects. Also, as suggested, it is an opportunity to put Canada at the forefront of a developing technology. It seems to me that much greater efforts should be made into development of alternative energy motivated automobiles. Certainly coming up with an economically feasible car that using electricity, hydrogen, or the like, would have a much greater impact on our economy, our environment and our position on the international stage regarding leading edge science and technology. So, go ahead and put a few million into CCS research. But, put a few billion or even tens of billions into alternative energy automobiles, and other such areas.
Lloyd MacIlquham
28 February, 2009
14 February, 2009
- Harper appealing to the middle of the road, that would be an Extreme Makeover.
Comments on TS “Politicians mine middle class for success”, 14 Feb.’09, Bruce Campion-Smith, http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/587562
Middle class also means middle of the road in Canadian politics, it seems to me.
For Harper to appeal to the middle class either Harper will have to move to the center from the extreme right – not bloody likely, no matter how many makeovers, extreme or otherwise.
Or the middle will have to move to the extreme right – God help us.
It appears that Harper’s plan is to appear more middle of the road in order to get the middle class vote and retain power but to surely and steadily pull all Canadians and Canadian society more and more to the extreme right politically (compare Harper’s speech in Fredericton at the beginning of the last election – 13 Sep.’08).
Middle class also means middle of the road in Canadian politics, it seems to me.
For Harper to appeal to the middle class either Harper will have to move to the center from the extreme right – not bloody likely, no matter how many makeovers, extreme or otherwise.
Or the middle will have to move to the extreme right – God help us.
It appears that Harper’s plan is to appear more middle of the road in order to get the middle class vote and retain power but to surely and steadily pull all Canadians and Canadian society more and more to the extreme right politically (compare Harper’s speech in Fredericton at the beginning of the last election – 13 Sep.’08).
12 February, 2009
- It is the people that suffer from recession and it is the people that must take action.
[Comments on the TS article
Leaders too willing to sit on sidelines, James Travers, Feb 12, 2009 04:30 AM,
http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/586348]
It is we the people of Canada that must take action to pull ourselves out of economic ruin. It does no good to turn to the government and expect them to do the things that will, magically, make everything all right. It doesn’t matter what the government does, if all of us, individually, and as a nation, are not willing to take the necessary action.
Simply passing off huge debt to future generations, as attractive and simple a concept as it is, is not the solution and represents an abdication of responsibility. Someone once explained to me that the people in Canada and United States would never stand for another Depression. However, this is apparently not true.
A look at Obama’s rhetoric is very much addressing this issue and if he is able to change people’s attitudes then they may have some hope. Canadians must take charge and responsibility for their own future.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Leaders too willing to sit on sidelines, James Travers, Feb 12, 2009 04:30 AM,
http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/586348]
It is we the people of Canada that must take action to pull ourselves out of economic ruin. It does no good to turn to the government and expect them to do the things that will, magically, make everything all right. It doesn’t matter what the government does, if all of us, individually, and as a nation, are not willing to take the necessary action.
Simply passing off huge debt to future generations, as attractive and simple a concept as it is, is not the solution and represents an abdication of responsibility. Someone once explained to me that the people in Canada and United States would never stand for another Depression. However, this is apparently not true.
A look at Obama’s rhetoric is very much addressing this issue and if he is able to change people’s attitudes then they may have some hope. Canadians must take charge and responsibility for their own future.
Lloyd MacIlquham
08 February, 2009
- There should be a Public Inquiry into Harper bringing the Libel suit against the Liberal Party
The Harper libel lawsuit is framed as a private matter as far as the courts are concerned. However, it is very serious matter as far as the people of Canada are concerned. Although the court has dismissed the case it is far too important politically for the people of Canada to dismiss. The suggestions seem to be that Harper brought this case for political reasons. My reading of this article is that Prof. Magnet suggests that it may be the case that it was brought to “push the problem down the line in time”. Down the line in time might be “after the next election”, which when reviewing the chronology of the case makes one wonder.
Also, apparently, an opinion of University of Toronto professor Peter Russell, was filed as expert opinion by the Liberal Party in the related injunction case in which he states "…The prime minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents …". (29 Aug.’08, CTV article).
****************
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/Harper_Cadman_080828
Harper cross-examined in Cadman tape libel case
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 6:13 PM ET
Tim Naumetz , The Canadian Press
****************
Another political dimension of the case is the sheer cost of defending the case and the amount of the award. Given the Liberal Party’s dire financial straights at the time and the impending election, one might wonder if this were also a factor in bringing the law suit. In Tom Flanagan’s G&M article of 28 Aug.’08, he states, “…the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles…”. I asked Mr. Flanagan directly if he thought the Cadman libel law suit were an application of this strategy. His answer was “…I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason.” I guess after reading what Prof Magnet and Prof Russell have to say I can’t say I think he sued “simply for that reason” either. This is re-inforced, of course, when one looks at the Economic update presented to Parliament in November by Harper and the Con’s and its undermining of finances to the opposition parties.
For the Prime Minister of our country surely is not simply a question of propriety but the appearance of propriety. I think there should be a public inquiry to resolve this matter once and for all.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080828.wcoelection0828/BNStory/specialComment/
The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away
And if they're not careful, they could end up in a financial pit
· Article
· Comments ( 169)
·
TOM FLANAGAN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
August 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM EST
Carthago delenda est.
- Cato the Elder
For the complete Tom Flanagan question and answer please go to: http://cicblog.com/comments.html
(The articles referred to above have not been reproduced due to copyright considerations)
Lloyd MacIlquham (Nanaimo, B.C.): Hi Mr. Flanagan. In your G&M article article, "The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away," Aug. 28, 2008, you conclude: "Against this backdrop, the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles." In your opinion, what is the likelihood that Harper's $3.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals is an application of this long-term strategy, both with respect to legal fees required to be expended and actual awards; and, to what extent, if any, does it play a part?
Tom Flanagan: Please bear in mind that I'm not working for Mr. Harper any longer, so when I write I am just expressing my own views. Forcing the Liberals into a war of attrition is my own view of strategy, not that of anyone else. Mr. Harper's lawsuit against the Liberals does indeed impose some financial burdens on that party (as it does on the Conservative Party, which also has large legal fees to handle). But knowing Mr. Harper as I do, I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason. As when Peter Lougheed successfully sued the CBC, it's because the injured party genuinely feels he's been defamed.
Also, apparently, an opinion of University of Toronto professor Peter Russell, was filed as expert opinion by the Liberal Party in the related injunction case in which he states "…The prime minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents …". (29 Aug.’08, CTV article).
****************
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/Harper_Cadman_080828
Harper cross-examined in Cadman tape libel case
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 6:13 PM ET
Tim Naumetz , The Canadian Press
****************
Another political dimension of the case is the sheer cost of defending the case and the amount of the award. Given the Liberal Party’s dire financial straights at the time and the impending election, one might wonder if this were also a factor in bringing the law suit. In Tom Flanagan’s G&M article of 28 Aug.’08, he states, “…the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles…”. I asked Mr. Flanagan directly if he thought the Cadman libel law suit were an application of this strategy. His answer was “…I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason.” I guess after reading what Prof Magnet and Prof Russell have to say I can’t say I think he sued “simply for that reason” either. This is re-inforced, of course, when one looks at the Economic update presented to Parliament in November by Harper and the Con’s and its undermining of finances to the opposition parties.
For the Prime Minister of our country surely is not simply a question of propriety but the appearance of propriety. I think there should be a public inquiry to resolve this matter once and for all.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080828.wcoelection0828/BNStory/specialComment/
The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away
And if they're not careful, they could end up in a financial pit
· Article
· Comments ( 169)
·
TOM FLANAGAN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
August 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM EST
Carthago delenda est.
- Cato the Elder
For the complete Tom Flanagan question and answer please go to: http://cicblog.com/comments.html
(The articles referred to above have not been reproduced due to copyright considerations)
Lloyd MacIlquham (Nanaimo, B.C.): Hi Mr. Flanagan. In your G&M article article, "The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away," Aug. 28, 2008, you conclude: "Against this backdrop, the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles." In your opinion, what is the likelihood that Harper's $3.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals is an application of this long-term strategy, both with respect to legal fees required to be expended and actual awards; and, to what extent, if any, does it play a part?
Tom Flanagan: Please bear in mind that I'm not working for Mr. Harper any longer, so when I write I am just expressing my own views. Forcing the Liberals into a war of attrition is my own view of strategy, not that of anyone else. Mr. Harper's lawsuit against the Liberals does indeed impose some financial burdens on that party (as it does on the Conservative Party, which also has large legal fees to handle). But knowing Mr. Harper as I do, I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason. As when Peter Lougheed successfully sued the CBC, it's because the injured party genuinely feels he's been defamed.
07 February, 2009
- Harper and the Con’s Insidious Neo-Conservative Agenda
My Comment, posted 7 Feb.’09, to “Job losses won't alter stimulus plan, Harper says“
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wjobs07/BNStory/Business/home:
These job loses are extreme, unanticipated and the worst in recorded in recorded history – three time higher than the 40,000 expected; 71,000 in Ontario alone. What is Harper’s response “not blown off tract every time there is some bad news”. If this is your ‘run-of-the-mill’ bad news that does not call for special consideration, then God help us.
That Harper would not do anything to adjust to this new and drastic acceleration in economic worsening is indicative of someone who actions are motivated by something other than protecting Canadian against this economic disaster. He took the same position during the election i.e. ‘steady as she goes’ and his economic update in November was, of course, ridiculously devoid of any action to address this extreme situation. The only way he would do anything was by the Opposition Parties threatening to throw him out of office – Impeachment Canadian style. Fortunately Ignatieff and the Liberals forced Harper and the Cons to include the periodic review of their actions on the economy.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Harper and the Con’s real agenda may very well be to take advantage of a disaster to implement their extreme right wing extremist agenda. We can only wait to see how bad things must get before Harper feels it is time to act. Unfortunately, it will likely be far too later to do anything about our current situation, surprise, surprise, and the action he takes may by quite shocking to anyone who has grown accustom to our way of life.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wjobs07/BNStory/Business/home:
These job loses are extreme, unanticipated and the worst in recorded in recorded history – three time higher than the 40,000 expected; 71,000 in Ontario alone. What is Harper’s response “not blown off tract every time there is some bad news”. If this is your ‘run-of-the-mill’ bad news that does not call for special consideration, then God help us.
That Harper would not do anything to adjust to this new and drastic acceleration in economic worsening is indicative of someone who actions are motivated by something other than protecting Canadian against this economic disaster. He took the same position during the election i.e. ‘steady as she goes’ and his economic update in November was, of course, ridiculously devoid of any action to address this extreme situation. The only way he would do anything was by the Opposition Parties threatening to throw him out of office – Impeachment Canadian style. Fortunately Ignatieff and the Liberals forced Harper and the Cons to include the periodic review of their actions on the economy.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Harper and the Con’s real agenda may very well be to take advantage of a disaster to implement their extreme right wing extremist agenda. We can only wait to see how bad things must get before Harper feels it is time to act. Unfortunately, it will likely be far too later to do anything about our current situation, surprise, surprise, and the action he takes may by quite shocking to anyone who has grown accustom to our way of life.
Lloyd MacIlquham
01 February, 2009
- Duceppe Makes it Easier for Liberals
comment on: "Separatism is back at forefront, Duceppe tells party meeting", February 01, 2009, Karine Fortin
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/580512
So too Harper and the Conservatives have “moved away” from their right wing extremist political ideology to that of a more Liberal approach. So too Duceppe and the Block a few years ago moved away from their sovereignist position to that of “what’s best for Quebec” and now are moving back to a sovereignist position. They both do it for the same reason, to hold onto power. It is interesting to note that apparently Duceppe is not taking the position that separation from Canada is “what’s best for Quebec” – if he is it wasn’t reported in this article.
Whether one likes it or not the Block represent a very large percentage of the people of Quebec and no one has the right to disenfranchise them except the people who vote for them. Fortunately for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals, Duceppe has just made it easier to do this. By Harper and the Con’s disenfranchising rhetoric in December Quebecers are likely to turn away from that party in the next Federal election. The trend in Quebec in the last few years has been away from separatists. I am not sure that a recession would change that. Duceppe is a smart politician and one can only wonder if he knows something others don’t. But, it appears he is deliberately distancing his party from the Liberals thus widening the gap and making it easier for people to vote Liberal in the next Federal election. Harper and the Con’s have developed the biggest propaganda machine experienced in any Western democracy in recent years and will, obviously, torque it up that the Block are separatists and they single handedly saved Canada.
However, the truly scary thought is that had it not been the Liberals receiving the support of Duceppe and the Block, as well as the NDP, in forcing the Conservatives to real action we would all be facing this economic tsunami without any action by our Federal government. Certainly in so doing Duceppe has done far more to keep Canada and nation together than Harper and the Con’s.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/580512
So too Harper and the Conservatives have “moved away” from their right wing extremist political ideology to that of a more Liberal approach. So too Duceppe and the Block a few years ago moved away from their sovereignist position to that of “what’s best for Quebec” and now are moving back to a sovereignist position. They both do it for the same reason, to hold onto power. It is interesting to note that apparently Duceppe is not taking the position that separation from Canada is “what’s best for Quebec” – if he is it wasn’t reported in this article.
Whether one likes it or not the Block represent a very large percentage of the people of Quebec and no one has the right to disenfranchise them except the people who vote for them. Fortunately for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals, Duceppe has just made it easier to do this. By Harper and the Con’s disenfranchising rhetoric in December Quebecers are likely to turn away from that party in the next Federal election. The trend in Quebec in the last few years has been away from separatists. I am not sure that a recession would change that. Duceppe is a smart politician and one can only wonder if he knows something others don’t. But, it appears he is deliberately distancing his party from the Liberals thus widening the gap and making it easier for people to vote Liberal in the next Federal election. Harper and the Con’s have developed the biggest propaganda machine experienced in any Western democracy in recent years and will, obviously, torque it up that the Block are separatists and they single handedly saved Canada.
However, the truly scary thought is that had it not been the Liberals receiving the support of Duceppe and the Block, as well as the NDP, in forcing the Conservatives to real action we would all be facing this economic tsunami without any action by our Federal government. Certainly in so doing Duceppe has done far more to keep Canada and nation together than Harper and the Con’s.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)