The Conservatives are cutting Environment Canada spending because they want things like ozone monitoring to go away. If Environment Canada cannot collect data showing that harm is being done, then people cannot criticize the Conservatives' policies because there will be no evidence.
No ozone monitoring -> no evidence of harm -> Conservative: "Nothing wrong with our policies"

*** Can the moderator's fix the problem with the forums so I don't have to wait until Post 16 or 17 to see new posts. It happens that when the page is approximately full, people can still post but you can't see it until PAge 2 is forced to come up.

Like I can't read either of these posts I just posted, until we reach Post 15 or 16.

you keep saying you're not against conservative posters here, yet the headline you posted under seemed pretty provacative and seemed to be attacking voters just for voting in who they thought would do a better job for Canada... i wouldnt start an anti drug forum with the headline- Liberal voters must all be potheads cause their party would legalize marijuana- like you said in the op you just wanted to say i told you so- not sure if that was the right way of going about it

There. Better?

Conservatives follow through on environmental ignorance: And I'd say that even agrees with all the conservative posters who admit the economy is of greater importance to a Conservative voter, than the air you breath and the land you live on. Or in the case of coastal cities like economic-centre New York in a couple decades at most, the water that covers where you used to live.

its called being realistic- i definately agree that canada should be at the forefront of environmental sustainability- i dont vote conservative because i agree with their environmental policies- i just dont vote for other parties because i don't like their economic/social policies- not saying the environment is not important but even some of these renewable sources people speak are not that friendly to the environment. international politics is more complicated than just saying lets fix the environment- can european economies really afford to focus on this right now? id say education is what is important- if people know about the benefits of renewable technology and can be persuaded to buy in they can totally change the supply/demand market for things like oil and coal- i dont see people knocking down doors to get their hands on solar pannels and electric cars. its as much about normal people as it is about the government- the US found this out with Solindra, and Ontario with dealing with Samsung.

o and building cities on fault lines and ocean cliffs as well as below sea level is just poor urban planning- not sure who came up with that brilliant idea...

Urban Planners did. There isn't a Civil Engineer in the world that would've said: "HEY! Quakes happen here. Let's build".

'nuf said about that.

I'd like to point out that Germany has significantly more invested in renewables than we do, and has for years. And I know Austria is being threatened with a AAA rating downgrade, but they too have been invested in renewable significantly longer.

You're under the impression that my position is "F*** the economy all together: Focus only on the environment." But again, I would like to point out that the reality of current Canadian politics is the exact opposite: It's very much "screw the environment, we need everyone to have jobs and the economy to be in tip top shape!". Conservatives justify this focus by saying "We'll fix the environment after the economy is fixed" (although I can't say I've ever heard a politician say that... Just the Conservative voter). But the world hits some sort of economic recession every 11 years or so. When is the shift to an environmental focus going to happen?

And it doesn't have to be an absolute shift! My belief is that Canada has enough intelligence in its Academics to figure out a way to use environmentalism to fund and fuel economic sustainability. Not to have oil fund our economic sustainability... Oil isn't renewable. Renewables are renewable.

why was my post removed????? Other than that, when there is a "green" initiative that isn't eating tax payer dollars for just a sliver of what the current methods use, then I would say go for the green product, but since the technology hasn't really caught up, then there's little chance of this happening. I can't see windmills producing what nuclear/oil can for a few decades... plus the upkeep/lifespan of windmills are horrible.

Horrible? I'd be interested to hear your rationale on how the lifespan is so bad?

I was in an Engineering & Society class discussion on this topic last term and was surprised with the misconceptions on this. Many people thought the whole tower has to be replaced every few years. The reality of it is the entire thing is modular. The motor unit needs annual repair and maintenance (creates jobs), as does any other power production facility, and the motor unit needs to be replaced decades down the road. You also bring up Nuclear, but that's not a valid argument from your position since Conservative-Canada's number one priority is turning oily-sand into money by selling it to the biggest polluters in the world. If Nuclear were the Conservative priority, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But now your attitude is "we'll go green when green is economic. If other developed nations are not going to lead in this development, then we won't either" And it's the same attitude with monitoring. And the same attitude with the rest of the environmental policies that exist world-round.

Honestly, I'll be happy when a Conservative admits, "The economy is our number 1 priority, and we don't much care to look at the environment as a mutual factor in that priority". That's clearly the principle stance that Conservatives are taking (I don't think they'd deny that off the record either), but for a politician to say it out loud would destroy the Conservative support.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Horrible? I'd be interested to hear your rationale on how the lifespan is so bad?

I was in an Engineering & Society class discussion no this topic before and was surprised regarding the misconceptions on this. Many people thought the whole tower has to be replaced every few years. The reality of it is the entire thing is modular. The motor unit needs annual repair and maintenance (creates jobs), as does any other power production facility, and the motor unit needs to be replaced decades down the road.

But now your attitude is "we'll go green when green is economic. If other developed nations are not going to lead in this development, then we won't either" And it's the same attitude with monitoring. And the same attitude with the rest of the environmental policies that exist world-round.

Honestly, I'll be happy when a Conservative admits, "The economy is our number 1 priority, and we don't much care to look at the environment as a mutual factor in that priority". That's clearly the principle stance that Conservatives are taking (I don't think they'd deny that off the record either), but for a politician to say it out loud would destroy the Conservative support.

I don't expect the government to go into business where it doesn't belong. To go into the business of inventing new green technologies is for private enterprise and not for an government agency that is run with tax payer dollars. Environmental technology is a high risk investment, especially now, where people and private corporations both know that there will be no sales, and where development is extremely expensive. It is also hard to test these new technologies because of the prices. I will include this article that shows this (car example) http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/06/stuck-in-first-gear/

Originally Posted by mike_302

Urban Planners did. There isn't a Civil Engineer in the world that would've said: "HEY! Quakes happen here. Let's build".

'nuf said about that.

I'd like to point out that Germany has significantly more invested in renewables than we do, and has for years. And I know Austria is being threatened with a AAA rating downgrade, but they too have been invested in renewable significantly longer.

You're under the impression that my position is "F*** the economy all together: Focus only on the environment." But again, I would like to point out that the reality of current Canadian politics is the exact opposite: It's very much "screw the environment, we need everyone to have jobs and the economy to be in tip top shape!". Conservatives justify this focus by saying "We'll fix the environment after the economy is fixed" (although I can't say I've ever heard a politician say that... Just the Conservative voter). But the world hits some sort of economic recession every 11 years or so. When is the shift to an environmental focus going to happen?

And it doesn't have to be an absolute shift! My belief is that Canada has enough intelligence in its Academics to figure out a way to use environmentalism to fund and fuel economic sustainability. Not to have oil fund our economic sustainability... Oil isn't renewable. Renewables are renewable.

All I'm going to say here (since I think Liberal/Conservative debates are rather futile), specifically about the bolded point, is that, while the world hits recessions fairly frequently, the one that we are currently going through (whether they say it's ended or not) was particularly bad, so many countries legitimately don't have the funding/resources to explore environmental possibilities until the world is back in shape.

im not sure about the science of wind turbines and all that, but have heard that they affect migratory patterns of birds and such- not sure if this is true but if it is then its not good- i agree that the government has the business to make regulations concerning the environment but should stay out of propping up companies who in recent examples have had some pretty shady business practices- and they don't even go after the most competitive option- government doesnt spawn innovation, demand for such products do, so scream at people who drive hummers in the middle of hamilton- go buy hybrids and solar pannels, if enough people do this then the market will shift to fit the demand- i doubt you would see any political party not take advantage of the oil we have and the demands of the americans for a more stable trading partner rather than the middle east. at least harper's not being two faced on the issue like obama who just wants to keep the environmental vote- if this were not an election year keystone would have been approved no doubt.

New green sustainable energy = millions of jobs, and a reason for long term technological advancements

problem, envirohaters?

Originally Posted by RyanC

New green sustainable energy = millions of jobs, and a reason for long term technological advancements

problem, envirohaters?

No Problem, but I, as a tax payer, don't want to use billions of tax dollars to do this. The problem is that private industries are smart enough to know that such investments will lead to their financial ruin. This is because people are not willing to risk buying something that costs a lot and does not perform to the standards that they're used to. I'm glad our government is smart enough to govern, like their supposed to and not get into every industry at their whim like previous governments. If private industries get involved, then fine, there will be more innovation in 1 year that a government run agency could do in 15 years but until this happens, we should focus on more important issues.