Harper lays low in Copenhagen

If what is best for Canada happens to be "unpopular", so be it.

Here's hoping we continue to stand our ground.

The Canadian government has strong opinions for not making significant cuts.

So be it.

Surely then, the government leader should have the moral courage to stand up, state it, and defend it against those who would attack it.

Any solution that involves giving away money is absolute bullshit.

Government gives away our money all the time. Can you narrow the pre-reqs for 'absolute bullshit'? Perhaps it may fall into the 'kinda bullshit' or the 'come on, that's a load of bullshit' catagories

Government gives away our money all the time. Can you narrow the pre-reqs for 'absolute bullshit'? Perhaps it may fall into the 'kinda bullshit' or the 'come on, that's a load of bullshit' catagories

He's right though. The idea behind Copenhagen is to lower world wide CO2 emissions. Okay so since they know we're not going to shut down the oil sands they tell us we can still be in the club and keep pumping that dirty oil IF we give billions to Africa...wait for it....so they can pump oil and dig mines and build factories and pump out EVEN MORE co2 than the oil sands are responsible for.


If that's not 'bullshit' then I don't know what is.

Gee. We can't find an agreement with huge polluters like China, India and criminal despots like Nugabe , Chavez and all the rest. We couldn't find agreements during Durban & Durban 2 either, and the press screamed themselves blue over that too.

Good for the government for standing up on principal and not signing things just to make others happy.

Loving this article....


"Ganging up on Alberta's polluting oilsands is becoming a national sport and it's on full display for the world in Copenhagen.

But what would the country look like if the cash flow pumped from the Western oil patch was suddenly turned off?

With climate change now morphing into a national-unity issue, angry defenders of Western oil argue that the provinces doing most of the environmental finger-pointing - namely, Ontario and Quebec - can only afford their own social programs and tax rates thanks to the gooey Alberta cash cow they love to disparage.

Alberta's premier says his province's oil-rich economy provides the rest of the country with about $21 billion - which, by way of comparison, is more than all of Canada's $18-billion defence budget, and about half of what Ontario spends on health care.

It is also a key driving force behind the federal equalization program, which transfers more than $8 billion a year to Quebec.

That $8 billion equalization cheque is equivalent to five years' funding for Quebec's cherished $7-a-day daycare program, and is almost twice the sum Quebec has slapped on the table to buy New Brunswick's power utility.

Many contend that curbing Alberta's oil production would siphon much-needed cash from the bank accounts of the so-called "have-not" provinces.

"The costs to these provinces might be a lot larger than they imagine," warned Robert Mansell, an economist and equalization expert from the University of Calgary.

"It's been the one thing that's brought a lot of money into the country and spread it around fairly widely."

Six provinces are set to receive about $14.2 billion in equalization payments this year. For 2009, the formula will funnel about $8.4 billion to Quebec, $2.1 billion to Manitoba, $1.7 billion to New Brunswick, $1.6 billion to Nova Scotia, $347 million to Ontario and $340 million to Prince Edward Island.

The purpose of the payments is to ensure the country's less prosperous provinces can provide citizens with services that can be reasonably compared with those offered by the others.

Despite Alberta's financial support, Quebec and Ontario have taken public shots at the province's oilsands development during the Copenhagen climate summit.

Both Quebec Premier Jean Charest and Ontario Environment Minister John Gerretsen refuse to let their provinces carry the load for bigger polluters, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, when it comes to meeting emissions goals.

"If they (the oilsands) are developed there may have to be larger greenhouse gas emission (cuts) elsewhere in the country in order to meet our overall targets," Gerretsen said.

Alberta Premier Stelmach shot back Wednesday in a public letter and television interview, warning the have-not provinces not to bite the industry that feeds them.

"Perhaps the most frustrating part of this all was the finger-pointing by Quebec and Ontario," Stelmach told an Edmonton television network.

"If this leads to really killing Alberta's economy who is going to support the programs in other provinces?"

He said Albertans spend more than $21 billion in financing the other provinces.

Remarkably, Stelmach's argument showed signs Thursday of breaking through.

Alberta's position has even received some sympathetic coverage in Quebec, which is the province most supportive of tough climate-change targets.

Public discourse here rarely touches on equalization and the subject is generally ignored except for when have-not provinces are at the federal bargaining table, seeking a richer deal.

But it has generated some attention this week.

Several prominent public commentators in Quebec explained that la belle province - like the entire country - benefits from Alberta's oil revenue through equalization payments.

On Thursday, three columns in two Quebec newspapers condemned Quebec and Ontario for their criticism of Alberta's oil industry.

"Hypocrisy has a name, or rather two: Quebec and Ontario," wrote Montreal columnist Lysiane Gagnon on Thursday.

"In short, it's thanks to the oilsands that allows Quebec to live beyond its means and offer luxury services such as $7(-a-day) daycares and universities that are practically free."

Historically, Alberta has always paid more per capita into the equalization program than any other province, Mansell said.

On the flip side, Quebec has been the largest net beneficiary of the program, he added.

In 2006, Mansell said he calculated that Quebec was a net beneficiary of $217.1 billion (in 2004 dollars) from the equalization program between 1961 to 2002. That has represented $767 per year for every Quebec man, woman and child, he said.

Over the same period, Alberta paid out $243.6 billion and Ontario paid $314.5 billion, he said. That has cost $2,510 for every Alberta resident every year, and $758 for every Ontarian.

He said that Alberta's oil and gas industry has also created spin-off jobs in manufacturing and engineering in Quebec and Ontario.

"The comparative advantage, which we clearly have in Canada, is resources," Mansell said.

"Whether we like it or not, that has been the driving force in our economy." "

Good post.

The provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec, as well as that wanker Miller from Toronto are total hypocrites. They make me ashamed.
Ontario and Quebec are quite happy to take millions in transfer payments from Alberta but slag the oil-sands off as millions more people flock to both provinces, buy big-fuck off cars, build big fuck-off houses, have kids to add more carbon emissions etc.
5% of Canada’s CO2 emissions are from Alberta. I wonder what percentage of emissions spew out of the cars built in Ontario and the cars that drive in Ontario? I’d hazard a guess it’s more than 5%.
They’ll be another 250,000 of them driving around the Province next year.

Maybe we should all stop driving cars, heating our homes, having kids, dogs, cats etc, stop farting or even breathing and stop bringing immigrants into Canada, after all, it’s just more emissions isn’t it?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_c ... -emissions

Well Canada certainly gets a bum rap on the per capita emissions point thats for damn sure.

However Alberta is above the other provinces but please don't take this as I am pointing fingers at them. They are only marginally higher then Ontario although QC certainly is far below them. Now if you factor "per capita" then that's where Alberta really suffers but that's not a fault for them but rather shared by all who depend on the industries that cause it.

For that I share your shame for Ontario pointing fingers when its auto industry (a big polluter on its own) produces cars that depend on Alberta oil.

Well that's always the same ol'story isn't it? We're all for environmental improvements so long as it doesn't cost us OUR jobs. To add to your point here the auto industry in Ontario certainly employs many people but it doesn't really make Canada one red dime beyond that employment. The same can't be said for the oil sands.


Also let's remember that most of the CO2 emissions calculated from the oil sands is the 'end user' emissions, that is after it's come out someone's tailpipe.


I sure as h-e-double-hockey-sticks have to agree with that! What's fair about comparing one of our central furnaces output with someone in Brazil where they call 14c "bloody cold", or even China for that matter?

And the award goes to,,,

fossil of the day



The only reason I know about this, because both of our Francophone media outlets in Quebec were very fast to point out this bit of ''irrelevant'' news. Even a news anchor at LCN saying ''Honte d'être Canadien mais fier d'être Québecois''. Again, shame on Quebec journalism with their constant bias.

yep. Amazing how people who have never endured sub zero temps can cast aspersions at those of us who realize we either heat our homes or freeze to death.

Of course the same can be said for those of us that wag our fingers at the nations that our deforesting themselves (or industrializing) because we did both to get to where we are.

Myself I may believe in AGW but I think carbon trading is mostly shit. I think Canada should look to conservation when it doesn't impact negatively (or target one province), switching to better and greener power production, and just out and out planting lots and lots of trees (as part of an eco restoration program).

Now getting richer countries with little land mass (like UK, Japan) to pay other countries for reforestation is something I think they will accept and will benefit others provided the money does what it is geared for.

Not sure what you mean about the oil sands providing money beyond employment though. They both produce goods for sale. Where is the difference?

If the source of that info is credible, why are the media not ragging on the UK, Japan and Germany who's emmissions are higher than ours?

This is just politics against the oil-sands. They are not even looking at the stats. It's like baby seals all over again. Bloody pinkies with an agenda. An agenda that overlooks other countries and targets Canada.