|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
 Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I agree, we need a plan but neither party has given it, at least the Liberals pretended to do something. I feel like the Con's are just saying no and thats no acceptable, its time that the country which uses more power than all of Africa start doing its share to save the planet. And I dont think all the conservatives are crazy, just some of those nutty backbenchers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RachaelRoo wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That's not an argument |
Well I guess I'm not here to argue--least of all with a conservative sympathizer. |
No, I don't mean argue like 'let's fight' - I mean and argument as in a string of facts and conclusions based on a logical interpretation of those facts. All you've given is assertions. |
I should have said "debate" instead--which is what I meant.
Watching the Trailer Park Boys was much attractive to me than doing a play-by-play of conservative screw ups so far.
For now, I'd say Harper's on the road to diminishing an important voice in convincing other countries about not wrecking the planet.
And right now, tucking into the Economist for a while before bed is still more attractive than continuing. Maybe I'll be up to it tomorrow after a couple hundred milligrams of caffeine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| I agree, we need a plan but neither party has given it, at least the Liberals pretended to do something. |
Well, in some ways that's worse though, isn't it? Everyone becomes complacent, thinking have a working plan, but lo and behold- they didn't.
The Conservatives may well be worse, but I'm not ready to condemn them after only two effective months in power and under a minority to boot.
I view it sort of like I view my feelings on Bush- I'd rather condemn the man based on the things he did (or in some cases didn't do) that were his responsibility, rather than blaming him for things that might have happened or things people fear he may do.
There's plenty of 'real' things to condemn him for. The Harper Conservatives, no, at least not yet. And so I'm not going to condemn them based on things people say they fear the Conservatives will or won't do.
Does that make me a sympathizer? Well, I haven't ever voted for them, and as things stand can't see myself ever voting for them, but will I support them if they attempt to enact sensible legislation?
Sure.
Are they attempting to enact sensible legislation with regard to the environment?
Well, that's the 64, 000, 000 question, isn't it?
And the idea that the Conservatives have been a terrible party with regard to environmental legislation has been shaken to the core recently. I don't know about you, but this shocked the hell out of me when I first heard it: Panel of environmentalists name Mulroney Canada's Greenest Prime Minister ever
Some more food for thought:
FOR THE RECORD: Brian Mulroney on Climate Change (his acceptance speech)
How to stop Canada's globe-warming ways
A rebuttal: Dubious Mulroney legacy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RachaelRoo
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Location: Anywhere but Ulsan!
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| I agree, we need a plan but neither party has given it, at least the Liberals pretended to do something. I feel like the Con's are just saying no and thats no acceptable, its time that the country which uses more power than all of Africa start doing its share to save the planet. And I dont think all the conservatives are crazy, just some of those nutty backbenchers. |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060523.wxrenewable23/BNStory/National/home
They're looking at improving the quality of gasoline and offering tax breaks to companies for having better environmental practices. Not a bad move after only two short months in a minority government.
The thing to remember is that the government has to make choices on how to spend a limited amount of resources on the environment.
Canuckistan, it would be great if the government could spend an unlimited amount of money on environmental proteciton incentives/programs, but they can't.
So, the Harper government seems to have judged that this program would be a better use of resources than a few of the Liberal programs. Hardly a doomsday scenario.
Bulsajo is right though - if Harper gets a majority government, everything is going to be different. But for now, I won't be saying crap like Canadians should be ashamed or embarassed because of this. Kyoto was agreed to a long time ago and even then no one thought it would really accomplish anything more than to serve as a starting point to get nations to agree that something must be done to protect the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RachaelRoo wrote: |
| Canadians should be ashamed or embarassed |
Well, we probably should be ashamed or embarassed- our emissions keep rising when we promised to reduce them. But I don't see it as partisan issue- ultimately the Conservatives and the Liberals consist of... Canadians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clinton wrote: |
| The Kyoto global warming talks opened on December 1 [1997]. Before the were over, Al Gore flew to Japan to help our chief negotiator...get an agreement we could sign, with firm targets but without undue restrictions on how to achieve them and with a call for developing countries like China and India to participate; within thirty years they would surpass the United States as emitters of greenhouse gases (the United States is now the world's leading emitter). Unless the changes were made, I couldn't submit the treaty to Congress; it would be difficult to pass in the best of circumstances... |
Clinton, My Life, 769-770.
| Timothy Wirth wrote: |
The year 2001 has been the most turbulent year in international global-warming policy since the tumultuous final round of negotiations on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. US President George W. Bush�s decision in March to withdraw from further talks on the 1997 Kyoto Protocol may seem to be a potentially fatal blow to current international efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions. However, as the year draws to a close, the outlook for real progress is actually more mixed. The outlook is in many ways even more positive than it was in the final years of President Clinton�s administration, which never mounted a serious campaign internationally or domestically after retreating from its public commitment to aggressive action on global warming within 24 hours of the successful conclusion of the Kyoto talks in December 1997.
The morning after the Kyoto agreement, Republican congressional leaders held a news conference declaring the Protocol �dead on arrival� in the US Senate, arguing that the document�s failure to set binding emissions-reduction targets for China, India, and other major developing countries would economically disadvantage the United States. In response, the Clinton administration chose not to defend the Protocol�s basic premise: industrialized nations, whose fossil fuel-based economic growth in the 20th century is largely responsible for today�s increased level of greenhouse gas concentrations, should act first to curb their emissions growth. Instead, the White House announced that it would not send the agreement to the Senate for ratification without obtaining emissions-reduction commitments from key developing countries�a posture that directly contradicted the international negotiating position it had maintained for more than two years... |
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/959/
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That's not an argument |
Well I guess I'm not here to argue--least of all with a conservative sympathizer. |
A "conservative sympathizer"? Dude, you on soju now?
So, you would be against any policy that the Harper government does, simply because it was done by the Harper government? Do you feel this to be an intelligent position? Are you willfully adopting the intellectual fortitude of your students at Wonderland?
Canada is doing fine. Stop with the hyperbole.
And what is wrong with being from Alberta? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
