On CTV's Question Period this afternoon, a journalist panel was asked what they thought was the “worst political move” of 2009. CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife makes what I think is a convincing argument that the worst political move last year was the Harper government's inability to craft a national environmental/climate change plan. The leaders of the country's three biggest provinces — Ontario, B.C. and Quebec — are now heading their own way when it comes to environmental policy and their way is likely at odds with some of the choices that energy-rich provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan might favour.
That sets the stage for more regional factionalism in the country and another potential unity crisis, argues Fife. I think he's on to something.
Here's what Fife said on QP this afternoon (transcript provided by CTV):
… what I think is the worst political move, and it's not one that has really been on the radar screen that much, has been the failure of this government develop a national environmental plan that involves all the provinces and all the industries. We're now seeing that the provinces are leading the way on environmental … and you're now seeing Ontario and Quebec pitted against Alberta. And I think the failure of the Harper government to deal seriously with environmental policy is going to potentially fracture the unity of this country.
What you cannot have are the central Canada, the two biggest provinces where so much of the industrial base is fighting with the engine of the economy right now, which is Alberta, and its oil. But we are seeing those divisions, and they're very serious divisions, and if this is not addressed we may be back in the kind of unity crises that we saw back in the 1990's…
Don't know, David. I think you've to suck up to Fife a lot more than this to get your old job back 🙂
How about the least unreported scam in 2009?
Funny how the media thought it was so earth-shakingly important to “report” on a few environuts who crave media attention giving out their fossil awards to Canada. Doubtless they rowed their canoes to get to Copenhagen, so no fossil fuel was used to get there, right?
BTW, similar awards we never heard about were handed out to Canada during the Liberals' tenure. Funny, eh?
I didn't notice much “reporting” on the Climategate emails either. Funnier still. Not much investigative zeal there. I wonder why?
Nor did I notice much reporting about Canada's standing in the Environmental Performance Index, which I first pointed out in a comment on Nov. 26/09 on this very blog.
Did Fife report on Canada's standing on that Performance Index? I don't think so.
Canada is not #1 on that Index, it's only a modest yet credible #12, 14 spots ahead of environmentally virtuous Denmark at #26. The only coverage that standing got was in a Lorrie Goldstein column. But I guess Fife doesn't read Sun newspapers.
And apparently Fife didn't read the op-ed by La Presse editor André Pratte, translated by Norman Spector here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/why-jean-charest-blew-his-smoke-stack/article1409857/
In that op-ed, Pratte states:
“… In one area, we could have acted concretely to do our part in reducing emissions – road transportation. How have we demonstrated our ecological concerns?
Today, there are 390 000 more passenger vehicles than there were five years ago. Since 1990, emissions from road transportation have increased by 37 per cent.”
My holier than thou province is a “leader” in lowering its GHG emissions only because of an accident of nature – its water resources. So as far as I'm concerned, my premier is flexing his flabby environmental muscles only because he hopes to divert attention from some construction scandals plaguing the province.
Perhaps if the premier of Ontario did something about all those coal-fired powere generating plants which he promised to close (was it only two elections ago, or was it three ?) and which are far worse polluters than the oil sands, Canadians might take him more seriously instead of seeing him as an embarrassing hypocrite.
Bob Fife has been pushing this “we're facing a unity crisis over the environment” meme for several weeks now, but so far it doesn't seem to have caught on with average Canadians, as opposed to his colleagues in the media who seem to be trying to generate the news they write about.
During that same QP program Fife said Harper had to “eat crow” when he met Chinese Premier Wen. Many in the MSM practically celebrated that perceived snub when the PM was in China. They likewise celebrated another so-called snub by Obama, who assigned the task of informing our PM about the US new policy on Afghanistan to VP Joe Biden.
Yet nary a word about the same Chinese Premier “snubbing” Obama.
Here’s something else Bob Fife didn’t read or notice about Copenhagen. He apparently doesn’t read L. Ian Macdonald’s columns either.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/China+emerges+world+superpower/2369141/story.html
« … At that, Barack Obama was snubbed by the Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao. And then the U.S. was snookered by the Chinese.
As the New York Times reported Sunday in a riveting piece from the back corridor of the conference: “Twice during the day, Mr. Wen sent an underling to represent him at the meetings with Mr. Obama. To make things worse, each time it was a lower level official.” …»
Did Obama have to eat crow too? Or is this a case of selective snubbery?
Or is this a case of selective snubbery?
No, Gabby, it's just a case of the all too familiar selective reporting.
You're more direct than I am … 😉
And another thing …
Thanks to PM Harper's tenacity in insisting a global problem requires a global solution, 192 nations, not just the 32 “guilty” Kyoto signatories, have finally admitted they have a role to play too in dealing with the environment.
However, here at home, how many times have we been told by the enviro-gurus from the Pembina Institute, the David Suzuki org, and countless other environment “experts” like opposition critics David McGuinty, Bernard Bigras, and Linda Duncan, that Canada has the highest per capita emissions IN THE WORLD due to our “dirty tarsands”? Another gross inaccuracy.
On pages 89-91 of the International Energy Agency 2009 report http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf, Tables on CO2 emissions per capita (2007 data) tell us:
1. Qatar: 58.01 tonnes per capita
2. United Arab Emirates: 29.91
3. Bahrain: 28.23
4. Kuwait; 25.09
5. Netherlands Antilles: 23.57
6. Luxembourg: 22.35
7. Trinidad & Tobago: 21.85
8. Australia: 18.75
9. Canada: 17.37
Tiny Luxembourg (surface area 2590 sq km compared to Canada's 9 984 670 sq km), the Netherlands Antilles (surface area 800 sq km), and Trinidad & Tobago (5,130 sq km) produce more CO2 per capita than we in the 2nd largest and much colder country in the world do!
Those three tiny countries produce in total 67.77 tonnes per capita to Canada's 17.37 tonnes. And Canada gets the fossil awards!?!
“… the worst political move … has been the failure of this government [to] develop a national environmental plan …”
Calling Mr. Fife! The government tabled its Clean Air Act in Oct 2006, but of course it was not good enough for the enviro-gurus, who immediately dismissed it as “dead in the water.”
So back to the drawing board.
But the enviro-gurus not only dislike the palette of colours, they hate the artist. They prefer the pie-in-the-sky promises of Chretien's Kyoto or the punitive Dion carbon tax to continental policies that will balance environmental concerns with economic ones.
Interesting report on CO2 emissions, Gabby. I was curious about the Netherlands Antilles and Trinidad and Tobago, so did a bit of googling.
The Netherlands Antilles is a collection of separate islands belonging originally to the Dutch, but is going to be disbanded later this year. The main economy seems to be petroleum refining, located in Curacao. As for T & T, again the main driver of the economy is based on petrochemicals. So if the AGW crowd have their way, both these two small regions will be out of business and out of luck.
The bigger point though, is that it just demonstrates how ridiculous this per capita number is. Shutting down both these economies would do next to nothing for the environment, but devastate these small island communities.
I don't know why this kind of information is not dug up by the “inquiring minds” of most journalists. Why is it they can accept without question the information passed on to them by certain lobby groups who have their own agenda, yet demand absolute “transparency” on questions of national security, scoffing at the need for redacting sensitive documents?
I doubt this information will be considered important by climate alarmists, but I figure I'll share it anyway (in separate instalments):
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-5.pdf
NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-5
THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE UNITED STATES TROPICAL CYCLONES FROM 1851 TO 2006 (AND
OTHER FREQUENTLY REQUESTED HURRICANE FACTS)
Updated 15 April 2007 for return period information
RANK HURRICANE YEAR CATEGORY
1 TX (Galveston) 1900 4
2 FL (SE/Lake Okeechobee) 1928 4
3 KATRINA(SE LA/MS) 2005 3
4 LA (Cheniere Caminanda) 1893 4
5 SC/GA (Sea Islands) 1893 3
6 GA/SC 1881 2
7 AUDREY (SW LA/N TX) 1957 4
8 FL (Keys) 1935 5
9 LA (Last Island) 1856 4
10 FL (Miami) Pensacola 1926 4
(Sorry, I can't manage to get a neat table to show)
Notice how many of those hurricanes happened in the 19th century or early 20th century, when our “carbon footprints” were not as pronounced as they are now.
Of interest: page 11, “Table 6. Number of hurricanes by category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.”
Notice:
• between 1851-1860 there were 18 hurricanes
• between 1881-1890 there were 22 hurricanes
• between 1941-1950 there were 24
• whereas between 2001-2006 there were 15 hurricanes in all.
Ummm, were the Alberta oilsands responsible for all those hurricanes too?
Yes, it's pesky me again, with more UBIs (Useless Bits of Information).
http://nsidc.org/snow/blizzard/storms.html
“Some Other Notable Snowstorms and Blizzards
February and March 1717
“The Great Snow of 1717” blanketed New England in a series of four storms, leaving nearly four feet on the ground and drifts up to 25 feet high.
January 1772
“The Washington and Jefferson Snowstorm” is so named because it trapped both men at their homes with snow up to three feet deep throughoutMaryland and Virginia.
December 1778
Named after the Revolutionary War troops stationed in Rhode Island, drifts were reported to be 15 feet high after this storm.
November 1798
“The Long Storm” went down in history as the snowiest on record for that month. Stretching from Maryland to Maine, up to a foot-and-a-half of snow coated the region.
December 1811
A powerful storm buffeted New York City, Long Island, and southern New England, accompanied by gale-force winds and destructive tides that severely damaged many ships and harbors.
January 1857
“The Cold Storm” produced severe blizzard conditions along much of the eastern seaboard. Temperatures fell below 9 below zero Fahrenheit, and snowfalls were between one and two feet deep.
March 1888
The “Blizzard of '88” produced temperatures plummeting well below zero degrees Fahrenheit, ravaging gusts of wind and deep snow drifts that stranded several cities, leaving them without transportation or communication. New York City suffered the most damage, particularly to its harbor areas.
November 1898
The “Portland Storm” was named after the ship that sank off the coast of Cape Cod, the S.S. Portland. High winds and moderately heavy snows accompanied the storm.
January 1922
The “Knickerbocker Storm” dumped over two feet of heavy snow on Washington D.C. causing the roof of the Knickerbocker Theatre to collapse, killing nearly 100 people.
December 1947
A post-Christmas storm caught New York residents by surprise, dropping two feet of snow in 24 hours.
January 1967
A series of record-breaking storms battered the west coast of Lake Michigan, hitting Chicago the hardest, shutting nearly everything down. Looting of the unattended stores became rampant, and it took the city over two weeks to clear the major highways and roads.
February 1969
New York City became trapped under a foot-and-a-half of snow. Commuters became stranded in their cars, schools closed, and travelers were stuck at airports, which were also forced to close. To make matters worse, many of the snow plows had become buried by snow in their storage lots and had to be dug out before they could be used. The city and outlying suburbs were forced to hire 10,000 shovelers and workers to clear the streets.
February 1977
Ontario, Canada and western New York state were slammed by a storm that killed 28 people and shut down the city of Buffalo for over a week. Highways were clogged with thousands of stranded vehicles, and people became trapped at schools, stores and offices, where they were forced to spend the night because they could not make it home through the blizzard.
March 1993
The “Blizzard of the Century” ravaged the southern mid-Atlantic states from Alabama to Massachusetts, accompanied in other states by severe weather disturbances such as tornadoes, thunderstorms, and floods. Snow fell at rates between an inch and two inches an hour in some areas, and many locations experienced record-breaking snowfalls and record snow depths.
January 1996
The Blizzard of 1996 was responsible for over 100 deaths and brought much of the eastern United States to a complete halt. Schools, offices and airports were closed for several days in some areas as roads were impassable. Compounding problems, two subsequent storms blasted the same areas within the following week-and-a-half.”
Hmmm, who'd have thunk it? Weather – or is that climate – extremes way back when …