The 'Baird' Minimum

Love that phrase, "Baird" Minimum. Bob Rae coined it on friday I believe.

So we have had a flurry of of announcements reinstating Liberal programs that have been pared down to the point that they are either useless or only available to the affluent.

This is the "Baird" minimum. Just enough to look like they did something, which they did but it was backtracking. We lost a year and whittled down programs will not only fail to recover that year but will also be slightly ineffective in the future, but that is the nature of the 'Baird' minimum.

So they are going to announce mandatory emission caps. When? Will it be in 2050 again? Doubt it. Most likely it will take place like the rest of their announcements last week, sometime in April, after the budget that they could be brought down on. Convenient to say the least. They will look green with the 'Baird' minimum, get the majority they want (not on your life) and then cancel the programs and emissions targets. If they are kept in a minority situation without an election then we can see if they actually are honest brokers.

Which is probably why Stephane Dion may support the budget. He probably can't refuse because some of the budget is for liberal environmental programs (all over again) and it would be nice to hold Harpers feet to the fire for a bit. To see if he is serious and to chop away more of his conservative base because he's acting like a Liberal.

I am still waiting for more. What they announced is less than we already had prior to January 2006.

Mr. Baird, we are still waiting for the Conservative Plan for the environment. Haven't heard anything new yet. Recommend this Post

Stevilocks and the Three Bairds

Once upon a time, there was a little man named Stevilocks. He went for a walk to Parliament. Pretty soon, he came upon the "House" of the three Bairds. He knocked and, when no one answered, he walked right in.

At the desk, there were three publications. Stevilocks was desperate. He read from the first publication.

"This one is too hot!" , he exclaimed, If I acted on this the oil patch would get pissed.

So, he read the second publication.

"This one is too cold!," he said, "No one would vote for me if I did this!"

So, he read from the last publication.

"Oh Oh, This one was right!," he said.

After he'd read from the three Bairds' publications he decided he was feeling a little tired from all the obfuscating, so he went upstairs to the bedroom.

He laid down in the first bed, but it was too hard.

Then he laid in the second bed, but it was too soft.

Then he laid down in the third bed and it was just right. Stevilocks fell asleep.

As he was sleeping, the three Bairds came home.

PC Baird shouted ,"Someone's been sleeping in my bed"

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed, too" screamed CPC Baird.

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed and he's still there!" bellowed 'greenish' CPC Baird while pointing his finger indiscriminately.

Just then, Stevilocks woke up and saw the three Bairds and appointed the 'greenish' CPC Baird the Minister of the Environment. He jumped up, grabbed the 'greenish' CPC Baird and ran out of the room. Stevilocks and the 'greenish' CPC Bairds ran down the stairs, opened the door, and ran away into Stanley Park to throw 2 million dollars at the voters of Vancouver.

THE END?

Recommend this Post

BT Circle Jerk

I noticed a poll at CTV.ca yesterday asking "Who do you think would do a better job of protecting the environment?" The numbers currently stand at

Conservatives 5625 votes (44 %)

Liberals 3216 votes (25 %)

NDP 2282 votes (18 %)

Other 1684 votes (13 %)

The poll itself is not strange but the results are. I later came across some blogs, all coincidentally were blogging tories, that were rallying other blogging tories to go and vote (who for I wonder). One blog even mentioned an email that was sent out to other blogging tories, and another had the audacity to proclaim

"First Brian Mulroney is the Greenest PM, and now this!!!!"

Besides throwing up a little in my mouth, I decided to venture over to the dark side, and sure enough they were all mutually masturbating, even fixating on some road kill to help get them off. To their credit they allow girls to take part as well. One blogger even stated that CTV will blame these results on a certain group of bloggers.

No shit. It doesn't take a genius to surf the web.

I had visions of people constantly deleting there caches to vote over and over again, maybe even visiting all their relatives to vote using their computers.

The sound of 5625 one hand claps is by no means deafening.

I thought to myself, do these people actually believe this?

Unfortunately they seem to have created another reality which explains a lot about the blogging tories and the CPC now that I think about it. Why would people think the CPC did anything on the environment or will? The announcements made so far by Harper this week are liberal policies, with some things missing. Later this week they will announce the renamed enerGuide, a program which has been in operation since 1998. Being a very popular program people will notice right away that this new one by the government is not new just missing inspectors. Who are they fooling?

Where were these bloggers for the last 8 years? I would imagine from such behavior that they were still being breast fed or in a snake hibernacula.

I have to say, though, their message is exactly the same as the party they support. Perception is everything, substance is not important. Why would a group of people who never believed in climate change think this PM is doing a great acting on climate change?

Maybe because he's actually doing nothing which they support(ed).

Unfortunately by rehashing the liberal parties policies one year later the governement has accomplished two things.

1) They now have policy,

2) They look like they are doing something (especially with the mistruths they told the voters about the liberal environmental plan)

3) They are not required to do much more (than liberals already had a year ago)

We lost one year that we will never get back and they cannot fix that with another party's policies or a stacked online poll.

Recommend this Post

Is John Baird still Anti-Kyoto?

John Baird is on record to have delivered a speech to the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions (CCRES), a front group for the worst polluters in Canada. These people are reponsible for the concept of a Made in Canada Plan.

Legislative House of Asembly comments (under Kyoto Protocol)

"he references to not buying in, presumably because we want a made-in-Canada solution, well, that's exactly what Kyoto's going to be, a made-in-Canada solution. We made references in some of the ministry's own reports on the quality of air and on climate change, about working co-operatively to implement Kyoto.

A week or so ago we had this meeting downstairs with this Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions. I and a graduate student who works out of my office went down, quite excited about having some opportunity to dialogue, and we kept eating these little shrimpy things and drinking the wine and such and talking to some really nice folk, waiting for the dialogue to break out. But you know what happened? No dialogue broke out; in fact, we had Minister Baird stand up and give a brief set of comments where he said, "You know, we don't want to rush into things. We want to make sure we have full discussion and debate before we do something."

John Baird's speech was given while he was in the ill-fated Ernie Eves Conservative Government here in Ontario.

Ernie Eves and Made in Canada Plan from Legislative House of Asembly comments (under Kyoto Protocol)

Hon Mr Eves: We agree that you have to act and act now. We have been acting and we will continue to act. Indeed, as the member of the official opposition has pointed out, many private enterprises are already doing this. We should be acting, as Ontarians and as Canadians, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That is not the subject of debate here. The subject of debate is, is the best way to do it the highly technical interpretation of the Kyoto accord? By everybody's admission -- even the Prime Minister of Canada's -- except for the leader of the official opposition, it's unworkable in its current form. We have to find a made-in-Canada solution to lead the way in greenhouse gas reductions while at the same time protecting, in fact I would argue creating, hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Who in turn supported Ralph Klein's view on the protocol and a Made in Canada Plan

Ralph's take:

The Kyoto Protocol is his version of the hated National Energy Program, which was imposed on Alberta by the Trudeau government.

"I think the decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol doesn't concern you? Think again. Skyrocketing fuel and utility prices, tax hikes and lost jobs are consequences that affect all Canadians. There is a better way. We need a made in Canada solution. We can balance emission reductions with continued prosperity."

Legislative House of Asembly comments about Ralph and Ernie (under Kyoto Protocol)

I have a question for the Premier. It is reported that Ralph Klein is seeking a meeting with you, when he comes to Ontario, to try to discredit the Kyoto Protocol. I was Minister of the Environment when Ralph Klein was environment minister in Alberta. No one took the man seriously; he has spent his entire political career fighting every significant environmental program that would benefit our nation. He is considered to be nothing less than an environmental Neanderthal and a shill for business interests who oppose environmental improvement.

You have a choice, Premier (Eves): you can either enter a coalition with Ralph Klein and stand side by side with the oil barons and their cohorts who are spending millions of dollars to sabotage an international agreement that will meet the threat of global warming, or you can lead Ontario toward cleaner air and improved health.

And now since taking office Harper and his crew have resurrected the concept of a Made in Canada plan.

The phrase “made in Canada” caught on, and it is now experiencing a renaissance. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, (with the co-operation of major news organizations) have resurrected the phrase to describe new plans to deal with climate change, which involve cutting 80 percent of the budget for Kyoto, axing almost all of the Liberals’ global-warming programs, and shutting down the federal climate change site.

The text of the speech from John Bairds shmoozing with the CCRES is not available as it was a private event. Their was one person though who got in and the now magazine article originally posted by blogger Section 15 was the result. The notes on the speech, though do exist, and are in storage. These notes will surface very soon as their have been MANY requests for them.

Though Mr. Baird in the past has snubbed Kyoto, his actions now will speak for his views today. Though in light of this he has a lot more convincing to do on his commital to the protocol.

I fear though that this past will result in him only doing enough to make people think he's sincere on the environment.

I question the logic of Mr. Harper putting this person in the Environmental portfolio seeing Rona Ambrose didn't have this kind of baggage.

It does make me question, as well, Harper's stance on the Cabinent shuffle being about substance, not optics. I would tend to believe the opposite, especially with Bairds way of "discussing" in Parliament.

Prove me wrong Mr. Baird.

Hopefully more to come... Recommend this Post

Repost: Why ethanol blended fuels suck as Environmental Policy

On the heels of todays announcement from Chuck Strahl and Rona Ambrose, here's a rehash of a post on the archaic notion of mixing alcohol with fuels. Glad to see they are at least upto speed on environmental issues circa 1992.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been a lot of interest in ethanol blended fuels as of late but is it really worth it? Is it a clean replacement for regular fuel?

If you consider our most pressing concern to be particulates then yes it is good at reducing that but it does nothing to help with global warming or other concerns with the environment. It actually will result in more ground level ozone aka smog and still produce carbon dioxide (20%-40% reduction in CO2 only). The benefits being no sulfur dioxide in the ethanol and lower particulates. Instead what we get from ethanol blended fuels is formic acid which results when water contaminates your fuel. Research has linked formic acid to genetic mutation.

A 20% - 40% reduction in CO2 reductions sound great until you put it in perspective. Only a percentage of your fuel is producing less. The Conservative Government has committed 5% of fuel to be ethanol, so you have reduced your CO2 emissions not by 80% but by only 4%. The fuel still produces CO2, sulfur dioxide, nitrates and now possibly formic acid.


















Other problems

Turning food into fuel will cost us at the grocery store. As more companies start blending ethanol into their fuels in order to dilute the amount of gasoline they use, grains will increase in price. Simple economics.

http://tinyurl.com/yanjvg

Why are biofuels being pushed on the consumer?

These fuels looked attractive when we had no other options and its time to let them go. The solution to our environmental problem is that we burn things for energy. We need to step back and embrace a technology that does not rely on combustion of hydrocarbons.

Oil companies have embraced blended fuels because it is similar to a methadone clinic for heroin users. They will dilute the fuel they ship and yet get the same price. In effect they are diluting their stocks to make them last longer and make more profit than ever. We need environmental action now not profit manipulation. Recommend this Post