I'm just going to leave this here and take advantage of my right to say: I told you so...

U.S. scientists are raising the alarm about Environment Canada saying cuts in the department could go far beyond ozone monitoring.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.c om/tec...xzz1mMKgZ 2de

Kind of ironic that the U.S. is commenting on our environmental spending cuts too... Not sure if it's hypocritical on their part, or REALLY sad on our part.

so when exactly did you say US scientists were going to criticize Canada's environmental cuts?

Originally Posted by mike_302

Kind of ironic that the U.S. is commenting on our environmental spending cuts too... Not sure if it's hypocritical on their part, or REALLY sad on our part.

You're acting like the opinion of a few US scientists = the opinion of the entire US population and its government. There is nothing ironic or hypocritical about American environmentalists wanting Canada to spend on environmental projects.

Oh here we go... sure, I'm ready for the attacks:

@Chappy: I didn't predict the exact future: I said the Conservatives would exploit the oil for their financial well-being, and they had the worst environmental plan to justify it all. And look: They're all for selling the oil to Asia now, because the U.S. temporarily shut them down, while Asia is quickly becoming the world's largest energy consumer, and simultaneously, they're shutting down our part of an international environmental monitoring program.

@Rudiger: I didn't say "American environmentalists" (nice manipulation of my words), and you can make a point in either direction because not EVERY American scientist will agree. So I'm taking the generalization by The Gazette, and pointing out the irony in it.

Originally Posted by mike_302

I'm just going to leave this here and take advantage of my right to say: I told you so...

U.S. scientists are raising the alarm about Environment Canada saying cuts in the department could go far beyond ozone monitoring.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.c om/tec...xzz1mMKgZ 2de

Kind of ironic that the U.S. is commenting on our environmental spending cuts too... Not sure if it's hypocritical on their part, or REALLY sad on our part.

First of all, it's nice to see that someone started a political thread. It's been too long, really, so thanks Mike_302. Secondly, there's always going to be a group of scientists who are on the "fringe" of their belief systems. What "alarms" one is a natural occurrence/quite alright to another. As for environment Canada and the ozone monitoring, if you want it so bad, you can have a private corporation that specializes in environmental evaluation/measuring to do so and have to report to the government for a fraction of the cost. Also, if the US scientists want to monitor it, then they can ask their government to set up a post up here, but I don't think that will happen.

So it's okay to be one of the only countries that has arctic interests, and that is up and coming to be one of the World's leading oil sands extractors, but one that doesn't fund Environmental monitoring? You're saying, "It's cool, because we can hire these other people to do it.". I'm saying "It's not cool, because we just cut funding all together and didn't provide alternative solutions."

And we also just quit our membership as part of an international team that monitors these environmental effects.

No I didn't say heartless, money hungry monsters... They're just undeniably Oil loving, environmental-ignoring people. I don't get how that's even deniable, or arguable, given the fight for the oil industry, and the lack of spending, and even the environmental budget cuts which affect not just Canada, but the WORLD, and international partners in environmental care.

If you asked Stephen Harper if he would fight long and hard for oil industry, he'd say: Yes.
If you asked Stephen Harper if he'd fight long and hard to maintain our international partnership on environmental monitoring: He'd say NO. This is proven. THIS is not deniable.

Originally Posted by mike_302

No I didn't say heartless, money hungry monsters... They're just undeniably Oil loving, environmental-ignoring people. I don't get how that's even deniable, or arguable, given the fight for the oil industry, and the lack of spending, and even the environmental budget cuts which affect not just Canada, but the WORLD, and international partners in environmental care.

If you asked Stephen Harper if he would fight long and hard for oil industry, he'd say: Yes.
If you asked Stephen Harper if he'd fight long and hard to maintain our international partnership on environmental monitoring: He'd say NO. This is proven. THIS is not deniable.

I can see your point, however, when it comes to economic well-being, we have to take care of our own. This means cutbacks for numerous things not just environmental ones. It's also hard to maintain an environmental agreement when the worst contributors won't even think about joining. Why punish those who's standards are some of the best in the world? Seeing as most pollution comes from Asia and the US, the article seems to think that Canada should do something for another country. If the US scientists are so worried, they should go to Washington and plead their case to reduce emissions. The government would laugh at them. That's why they complain to Canada. As for the Oil industry is our future, and there have been huge technological advancements to make sure it's as clean as possible to extract and refine. The US lost jobs due to the fact that they rejected the problem, so our government decided not to listen to our neighbour to the south (As done for decades before) and went to the next viable agreement. Anything you do now "might hurt the environment" according to some scientists. You can't please everyone.

Environmental monitoring isn't about what other countries are or are not doing to fix their standards: The principle of monitoring is to be in the "know" with regards to many environmental factors like the ozone (not any more, since we have cut monitoring of that), and who to blame our air quality on. i.e. Southern Ontario can blame most of it's pollution from Michigan, and states in that direction... Wouldn't know that without environmental monitoring.

You can't go to a country and say "stop polluting, you're polluting our major cities" or "you're the leading cause of ozone depletion", or "the ozone hole is opening up over {insert country here}, so you better change something quick", if you don't have monitoring.

So the argument that "cut backs are justified because no one changes anything" is just silly. I notice that many Conservatives (especially those that went to South Africa) have this attitude of "They don't do it (practice environmental responsibility), so we won't either", which is very "He pushed me, so I pushed him" (environmental irresponsibility affects everyone)... Eye for an eye right? OH wait, that make s the whole world blind or something. I think that's how the saying goes.

get mad at the majority of the people who did not vote in the last election, not people who voted for a party they believe in... do you really think iggy or layton would be able to have done anything differently if they were pm? as long as the world runs on oil canada would be stupid not to be one of the major suppliers- thats would just be bad economics. show me a renewable energy source that is cheap to mass produce, profitable and that the world can rely on for things like running electricity, water etc. through their houses. Sure environmental standards could be better but i wouldnt put Canada in the position of being the only one to risk economic prosperity on it, which is essentially what would happen as the us, china and other large economies are not party to environmental treaties and are not taking those risks

I'm not arguing against your points. I'm just in absolute disgust that Conservatives take this approach of "The other major countries aren't doing it, so we shouldn't". When does that stop? The U.S. and China take the exact same approach. So does the world ever get out of that habit? Not if every country keeps voting in the party that believes this is acceptable.

Again. I don't think I'm arguing against your points. I see your points, and the attitude is clear. You have stated it yourself. It's just not an attitude I think the world can be sustainable on.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Environmental monitoring isn't about what other countries are or are not doing to fix their standards: The principle of monitoring is to be in the "know" with regards to many environmental factors like the ozone (not any more, since we have cut monitoring of that), and who to blame our air quality on. i.e. Southern Ontario can blame most of it's pollution from Michigan, and states in that direction... Wouldn't know that without environmental monitoring.

You can't go to a country and say "stop polluting, you're polluting our major cities" or "you're the leading cause of ozone depletion", or "the ozone hole is opening up over {insert country here}, so you better change something quick", if you don't have monitoring.

So the argument that "cut backs are justified because no one changes anything" is just silly. I notice that many Conservatives (especially those that went to South Africa) have this attitude of "They don't do it (practice environmental responsibility), so we won't either", which is very "He pushed me, so I pushed him" (environmental irresponsibility affects everyone)... Eye for an eye right? OH wait, that make s the whole world blind or something. I think that's how the saying goes.

No one can criticize the Conservatives' environmental policies if there isn't any evidence that harm is being done to the environment in the first place. This appears to be a potential objective of ceasing these monitoring activities.

I do agree with Misspolitics though regarding the complicated issue of pollution from developing nations (especially China). From an economic perspective it is incredibly hard for Canadian businesses, burdened with costs associated with environmental laws, to compete with businesses in countries like China where minimal laws exist or are enforced. This is aside from the lower wages already making it difficult for Canadian businesses to compete.

However, I don't think is a valid argument considering the Conservatives are not truly fiscally conservative. Clearly they will try to make it appear that balancing the budget and paying off the deficit is their objective. But this argument lacks credibility when they then try to justify billions for prisons and fighter jets.

Obviously there is a certain level of "moral" obligation that developed countries face regarding this issue. I think that it's reasonable to suggest that as developed nations, we should take the lead on environmental issues. However during such a economically turbulent time its quite difficult for politicians to make this argument when a large percentage of voters are simply concerned with keeping their jobs.

That being said, I think this whole issue is far more complicated than simply the environment vs. the economy. The two are not mutually exclusive, and there are various arguments to be made. But when you introduce politics and political agendas (not just the Conservatives, but all political parties) the focus shifts from achieving real results, to pandering to party bases and perceived voter groups.

Not sure what you mean by "isn't any evidence that harm is being done to the environment". If you're suggesting that pollution coming from mass industrialization in China and the industries in the U.S., as well as from the consumption of millions of barrels per day, then you've lost all credibility right there. Sorry. Feel free to clarify. But I'm still maintaining that I'm not arguing against the Conservative posters here... Just not agreeing that "Because other major economies are doing it, we shouldn't either", and I don't agree that's a justification for our elected political party either.