New Liberal Leader Declares War on Alberta

[notyoueither]

Flubber, is that City of Calgary, or GoA?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
Harper basically openly admitted they are doing nothing about the environment.
Granted, the Liberals made a lot of promises and also basically did nothing.
Now forget politics for a while,
I would really like to know, Asher, what you think is a sensible environmental policy.
It's easy to say Kyoto was not doable, and while that may be true, we havn't actually tried.
In Europe, a lot of countries have made a lot of progress and it hasn't hurt their economies much like we are promised all the time (see Germany, etc...)

I think you need to take some key dates into account.

What is the base date for Kyoto targets? Do you recall anything significant happening in Britain around that date? Germany?

Also, high taxes on gasoline have been a staple of European politics from way before Kyoto. Many places in Europe were working on reductions well before targets were formalised in treaty.

Furthermore, when you have an area with a population density up to 100 times that of another (Netherlands 392/ sq km, Belgium 341, UK 246, Germany 232, Canada 3.2) the scales favour efficiencies such as increased mass transit.

Finally, ther populations of Europe are not growing at the rate that it is in Canada, and by and large the climates are milder. Simple math could and should have told the Chretien Liberals, and anyone else with a brain who cared to look, that Kyoto was dead in Canada before it was signed.

That being said, should we not try? Of course we should.

Beginning in Alberta, it is massively irresponsible that we are burning natural gas to power the oil sands plants. We should have gone nuclear a long time ago.

Nationally, there should be much higher gasoline taxes, say by $0.50 to $1.00 per litre phased in over a reasonable period of time. At the same time federal gas taxes should be rebated to farmers and the transportation industry (and perhaps others) so that they do not stifle the economy. Meanwhile, the taxes raised should go into improving mass transit in cities and improvements in rail and other transport networks between cities along with incentives to citizens and industry to reduce all pollutants, and not just CO2.

The point is, I agree we can do better, and not screw the economy while we do it if it is done right. In fact, some things could be done that would improve the economy in the long run. However, anyone who campaigns on meeting Kyoto is either incompetent or dishonest, and neither attribute is something I want to see in the PMO.

[Odin]

Re: New Liberal Leader Declares War on Alberta

Originally posted by Asher
New Liberal Leader Declares War on Alberta

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Flubber, is that City of Calgary, or GoA?

Both the City and provoncial government are tossing in money-- I am not certain who owns the land since it is an expansion of the Trans Canada Highway

[Krill]

nye for prez?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither



Beginning in Alberta, it is massively irresponsible that we are burning natural gas to power the oil sands plants. We should have gone nuclear a long time ago.

At the time it seemed the easy solution. I believe gas in the area was sufficient for the purpose and pricing at the time probably did not favor bringing that natural gas to more southern markets. Now however, oilsands production has grown quite a bit and gas prices are better such that gas utilized in the oilsands could be sold elsewhere

I see the nuclear question as a seperate one. I pretty mucgh see the end use of the energy as irrelevant. To me it doesn't matter if the nuke power does the oilsands while gas heats Calgary or vice-versa.

Fow whatever reason, nuclear power seems to have a bad rap and I agree it needs to be reassessed --- I do believe that nuclear reactots require substantial quantitities of water . . as does oilsands development so that may be an issue.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Flubber


Both the City and provoncial government are tossing in money-- I am not certain who owns the land since it is an expansion of the Trans Canada Highway

That would be the province then

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher

That would be the province then

Usually for highways I agree but I thought I heard mentions in the press talking as if the City controlled the land at present

[notyoueither]

It appears we have been discussing the 'other nationality' of the wrong candidate.

Get your gaskets ready to blow, Asher.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Levant_Ezra/2006/12/04/2621199-sun.html

Mon, December 4, 2006
Question of loyalty
New Liberal leader Dion deserves citizenship scrutiny

By EZRA LEVANT

Stephane Dion is the new leader of the Liberal Party. And he is a citizen of France.

Imagine the shrieks from the media if the Conservatives were to elect a leader who is a dual citizen of the U.S. He would be called a U.S. poodle at best or a spy at worst. Every time he opined on a subject, it would be scrutinized through the lens of Canada-U.S. relations. Everything from military spending to foreign treaties like Kyoto would be looked at through the question: Was the Prime Minister of Canada truly pursuing Canadian interests, or was his loyalty to his other homeland at play?

Even Michael Ignatieff, the second-place finisher in the Liberal contest, never took U.S. citizenship despite 30 years living there. It was chutzpah that Ignatieff, a de facto American, returned to Canada to lead us. But at least he had the sense to remain a Canadian, at least legally.

So what is Dion's excuse? The man wasn't born abroad, as was our other leading dual-citizen, Michaelle Jean. And at least Jean had the taste to renounce her French citizenship (after public outcry) upon acceding to the post of governor general. But Dion was born right here in Canada. Yet he is a dual citizen of France.

When it comes to making decisions about the war on terror, and Canada's role in Afghanistan, will Dion be unduly influenced by France, a country that has taken up the role of lawyer and arms dealer for every terrorist state in the world, even defending Saddam Hussein until the eve of his overthrow?

Perhaps, in Quebec, French citizenship is a sign of cosmopolitan worldliness. More likely, it is a symbol of an inferiority complex, where French colonials demonstrate they are much bigger and broader-minded than mere North Americans -- they are part of the mighty French empire.

Here's what Dion said about the matter, on a rare occasion that he was pressed: "Multiple identities should be seen as an asset, not a threat," he said.

"There is nothing wrong with multiple identities. The hearts of people are big enough to accept different identities. Canadian citizenship will give me my rights. Identity is the way I feel about the country." No talk of loyalty or obligation, not talk of duties.

Because Dion was never considered a serious challenger, his statements like this have escaped scrutiny by the media, and by the Conservatives. Now that this loyal citizen of France will be on the next ballot to lead Canada, expect many more such clangers to see the light of day.

A word about Alberta's leadership election -- how dramatic to have one day that sees both a new federal opposition leader and a new premier of Alberta.

There are similarities: Ed Stelmach was seen as a compromise choice by Alberta Tories sick of the old guard represented by Jim Dinning, but wary of a dramatic choice presented by Ted Morton.

Stelmach is not a bold and charismatic man, but obviously is an organizer, moving from a distant third place to first in seven days.

If Stelmach truly is a uniter, he will give Morton a senior cabinet position and respect the policy aspirations of Morton's wing of the party. It is unthinkable that Dinning would now run as an MLA -- he clearly wanted the premier's job or nothing. Look for him to be appointed to a symbolic place in the party.

What an interesting time in politics.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber


Both the City and provoncial government are tossing in money-- I am not certain who owns the land since it is an expansion of the Trans Canada Highway

It seems to be a City of Calgary show. This makes sense as the province gives the cities cash for such programmes, and that many municipal noses would get disjointed were the Province to be making decisions of where to put homeless shelters.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/10/27/homeless-calgary.html

[Kuciwalker]

@ Dion.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why doesn't Alberta leave? It's clear they don't seem to be liked by the rest of the country who seem to see them as a piggy bank to be raided for cash whenever the feeling hits and a target for scorn in the interm.

We (the U.S.) should invite Alberta into the Union and finish the job that the American cowboys and settlers started in the 1870s.

[notyoueither]

Keep licking your chops for scraps to fall off the table.

Maybe you'll get lucky and collect a load of Frenchies. They do have a **** load of hydro.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Keep licking your chops for scraps to fall off the table.

Maybe you'll get lucky and collect a load of Frenchies. They do have a **** load of hydro.

We'll trade you Alabama for Quebec, straight up. Deal?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wycoff


We'll trade you Alabama for Quebec, straight up. Deal?

While at some times I would be tempted to trade Quebec for a used tampon, I would decline. Personally while we bi**h and moan, I like canada to stay as is and wouldn't trade them for anything less than Alaska ( As an Albertan you can never have enough oil)