Poll: Canada, Kyoto, climate change, Durban, jobs and so on

Earlier this week, MPs in the House of Commons voted on the motion you’ll see in the poll question below. I’m not going to tell you right now who tabled the motion,  what party the MP belongs to, or what the results were (and if you already know, don’t play the spoiler!)  but, in a post I hope to put up later today, I’ll touch on all of that in some notes I hope to make about about free votes in the House of Commons.

In the meantime, here is the exact wording of the House of Commons motion. As the Speaker, says, all those in favour? Opposed?:

THAT THIS HOUSE urge the government to:

  • (a) play a leadership role in tackling global climate change and ensuring Canadian jobs aren’t lost as the rest of the world moves towards a new sustainable energy economy;
  • (b) work in a leadership role at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Durban towards a binding climate change treaty with the goal of limiting average global temperature increases to 2°C;
  • (c) recognize the real, science-based threat of global climate change, as well as respect and adhere to its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord; and
  • (d) take immediate action to lower net carbon emissions in Canada and increase Canadian trade with our major partners in a new sustainable energy economy.

[polldaddy poll=5747367]

And by all means, leave a comment below and tell me why you voted the way you did.

9 thoughts on “Poll: Canada, Kyoto, climate change, Durban, jobs and so on”

  1. a) Jobs will be lost by making Canada particularly Ontario less attractive to business.
    b) That is laughable. China, India, the U.S. and many others major polluters would not bear the burden Canadians would.
    c)It is not proven man is changing climate which has changed repeatedly without man’s involvement.
    d) Canada is blessed with many natural resources. We should use them and be thankful of them instead of following others not so lucky in a green dream.

  2. Very nice look … but may I suggest you make the font colour just a shade darker? Rather than “tin” why not “lead” or “licorice” as the font colour?

  3. the motion is faulty from the get-go as its assumption is that the rest of the world is moving towards a new sustainable energy economy. I guess we’re not including China, India and Brazil to name a few…

  4. The difficulty with the motion is not its intentions, but its targets. How exactly can we garuntee less than 2 degrees of climate change? I can shine hunters at the end of the last ice age trying to keep the wooly mammoths from expelling gas, to keep the ice from melting!

    To me this looks like someone who lives in their mom’s basement and watches Star Trek all day believing it is real. I assume it is a CPC MP, because it wouldn’t be interesting if it was NDP. The person should lose their seat for attacking Canada’s future for a pipe dream.

    The comment above is also an excellent summary.

  5. Never agree to Kyoto or anything related to this climate fraud. It is just a way to suck money from Canada and create the UN’s world government. Not based on science!

  6. Nice look and feel here, but I really do not understand the fascination with the washed out grey font colours on websites.

    It makes it difficult to read, so I highlight it with blue and it gets enough contrast, or I just switch away.

    Use black “ink”, save the planet from man-made global eyestrain.

  7. On the motion, especially the “new sustainable energy economy” part. Let me tell you about my own very recent experience with so-called “energy efficient” items.

    My new washer takes twice the amount of time to complete a regular wash cycle. Why? Because before it starts any part of a wash cycle, it has to “think” and “weigh” the load, thus determining the amount of water it allows to be used. It is so stingy with the amount of water it allows into the drum that some items barely get wet. Not wanting unwashed clothing, I’ve had to re-do those items. So, though the intention is to save on water consumption, there’s actually more waste because I sometimes have to wash the same items twice. More electricity, more detergent & fabric softener, more water used. And the appliance manufacturers get to decide how I should wash my clothing!

    My new washer also does not allow me to rinse with warm water, which means that in the winter, freezing cold loads will be going into the dryer, taking more time than what it used to take when I had my old appliances (bought before the “sustainable economy” insanity set in).

    Oh, and my recently repaired toilet? Instead of replacing the float ball, the plumber put in a new contraption, supposedly more water-efficient. Well, unless one wants to see “stuff” left in the toilet bowl, one has to flush more than once — thus more waste.

    Whoever is designing these “new sustainable energy economy” items likely has never done a load of wash in his life and is probably used to an outhouse rather than indoor plumbing.

    Written with “sustained” anger and “sustainable” doubts that the “new sustainable energy economy” will improve our lives and “save the planet.”

  8. I don’t understand why anyone would vote against scientific reality, no matter how difficult change is. It’s time for Canada to act now: when Germany shifted its tax-base from income to energy, it spurred a decade of aggressive public and private investment in renewable resources and in just four years, it became the world leader in clean energy export, taking 70% of the world market just eight years after the initial policy shift.

    Wayne Gretsky famously said that the secret to his success was skating to where the puck was heading, not to where it was. With mounting calls to reduce greenhouse gases, diminishing supply from conventional oil wells, and innovation in clean energy technology, it’s clear where the puck is heading!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *