1 The Canadian environmental groups must be held accountable for their years of silence during the Chretien-Martin-Dion government, while our GHGs exceeded our Kyoto targets by 35% and not a peep out of them or the Liberal MSM. The whole thing stinks of payoffs that were used to buy out the environmental groups on the take of government funding.

2 "The Conservatives could double the grants, and it wouldn't blunt the attacks environmentalist organizations aim at them." Sure the could, but THEY DIDN'T did they, in fact they SLASHED, so you point is beyond useless. You chastize the Liberals for funding good research, done by experts in the field. You can spin this issue all you want, but the fact of the matter is the Conservatives immediately came to office and started cutting programs, despite the fact they had little real justification, other than they disdain for the environment. These aren't "environmentalists", they're called "experts", respected internationally. What the Cons have done on the environmental file is the equivalent of ignoring constitutional lawyers on Senate reform. You are running with Baird's tortured logic, and I would point out, that while disappointed that anyone in the "liberal media", lol, would give this crap credence, the article ends with the true motivations- Tory dodge and weave, abdicating responsibility. My rebuttal. The only partisans in this debate are people like yourself looking for excuses to justify you government's utter failure. Cheers.

3 I don't believe it - you've actually fallen for the CPC spin machine again. LOL, LOL

4 Two Liberals come on here and absolutely ignore the issues raised in the article. Why isn't that a surprise? What I found striking about the article is that it showed two environmentalists outright lying to the press about their associations with the Liberal party. They both explicitly denied their involvement, only to be contradicted by actual Liberal insiders — who, as I write on my own blog, don't seem to have any problems stabbing their Stephane Dion in the back in the process. Is it money? Yes. Is it the Accountability Act? Sure. Although the latter won't be rescinded any time soon, so support for the Liberals on this front probably doesn't really matter. Steve J, in the end, it's also about ideology. The environmentalists still see the Liberals as the best way to stop Harper, so they support the Liberals. I think it's as simple as that. They hate Harper and what he stands for, so they'll bend over backwards supporting ideological friends. As much as the right is constantly accused of doing this, it's the left that actually does it. To them, ideology trumps all. It's why, for example, public servants in the foreign affairs bureaucracy feel perfectly comfortable creating their own foreign policy, and why Toronto Star writers like James Travers feel perfectly comfortable defending them. It's their agenda. It's their ideology. And it must be protected at all costs. Democracy? Truth? Who cares about all that. When you're dealing with the pseudo-religion of political liberalism, none of that matters. Power, and keeping it away from the other guys, is what counts. I think the environmentalists and the civil service are perfect examples of putting that method of operation into practise.

5 Steve V. ... in your "rebuttal" you are correct in that the Conservatives cut funding to environmental groups who you claim were doing good research. Harper doesn't believe in global warming, and he doesn't want to restrict Canada's 2.1% miniscule contribution to global GHGs, since the US, China, India are not restricted. What is disconcerting is that the Liberals knowingly allowed GHGs to rise 35% above our Kyoto targets, and your precious liberalized environmental groups did squat to hold Chretien-Martin-Dion's feet to the fire. Why should they, they were doing good research while Canada's GHGs skyrocketed. Please tell us why this happened? Why were the environmental groups and the liberalized MSM so lax in their reporting on Canada's GHGs increases? I'll tell you what I think happened. The Liberals intentionally wanted to boost Canada's GHGs because they knew the only way to meet the Kyoto targets would be to (a) shut down the oil sands, coal-fired power stations, ban SUVs, or, (b) purchase Billions of dollars worth of Kyoto Carbon Credits from countries like China, Russia, India. I suspect the Liberals were going to go to plan (b), since then environment minister Dion's 2004 Project Green plan had allocated $5 Billion for Kyoto Carbon Credits, which would have only covered a small portion of our GHG excess. It's interesting to note that the Liberal eminence grise, PowerCorp-CITIC were heavily involved in building high sulphur coal fired power stations in China, while Paul Martin's CSL were building two specialized coal carrying vessels in China to transport that high sulphur coal around the Sea of China and into the inland rivers to fuel those same power stations. This is all uncommon knowledge but available on the internet if you search it out. You connect the dots. The environmental groups were in the Liberal's pocket due to the generous government funding, and that is undisputable. These groups were fully aware of Canada's GHGs increases and our Kyoto targets, which their good research would have determined easily. Now these environmental groups are attacking Harper because he stated that Canada would not purchase international carbon credits with Canadian taxpayer's money to mitigate the Liberal's intentional 35% intentional GHG excess over Kyoto. These environmental groups are in my view complicit in the coverup of the Liberal's delinquency in meeting our Kyoto commitments in a timely manner. They are as corrupt as the Liberals.

6 My wife took an environmental course in university last fall the prof asks the class what did the liberals do for the environment in their 12 yrs in power. Seems he fell for the cpc spin machine toomaybe exon pays profs at Manitoba universities. Or, he's telling the truth. He said "nothing at all," none of the liberals posting here have refuted that. Some people expressed shock, none of the people here who want to help fund liberals have offered much that Chretien Et al actually did. smokescreens might work on the MSM's, but... Two Liberals come on here and absolutely ignore the issues raised in the article. In other news the earth did a revolution yesterday. Why isn't that a surprise? Because they have only dingoes kidneys and bluster, because the facts are after all a bit embarassing.

7 The Liberals are in one frantic scramble like rats on a sinking ship. Expect to hear more lies as they play the defensive, hopelessly. Hey, even some of the fading "stars" of the weekend Gore crap extravaganza know what's up. Al is in for a rough ride and soon. Was it an "Inconvenient Truth" or a Convenient Lie and big money making scheme? Let's follow the money. Somewhere buried in all this filthy ruse is the granddaddy of Kyoto, Mo Strong, still AT IT.

8 Hello All, Just to correct one inaccurate statement made by Steve -- the Accountability Act contains no measures that do anything to change the likelihood that government grants to any person or organization will be audited. This is just one of many things that the Accountability Act does not do. In fact, it weakens ethics rules for the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government officials, and also contains only 30 of the 52 measures that the Conservatives promised to include in the Accountability Act. And no, the opposition parties did not prevent the Conservatives from including the 22 measures they promised, but failed, to include in the Accountability Act. In fact, the Liberal-controlled Senate proposed amending the Act to add 6 of the Conservatives' 22 promised measures, but the Conservatives rejected the proposed amendments. So while the Accountability Act is the most comprehensive government accountability law passed in the history of Canada, it is also 60 percent of what was promised, and Stephen Harper, John Baird and other Cabinet ministers lied to get into power and have gone on to lie several times about what is, and what is not, in the Accountability Act. For details go to: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJun1307.html Bye for now, Duff Conacher, Coordinator Democracy Watch

9 Too bad the Conservatives are such liars there Duff. The Liberals never lie of course, well, maybe sometimes, but only when the truth doesn't suit the agenda, then it's necessary to lie to all us schmucks and rubes. The Petit Gar from Shawinigan got elected to a majority simply by saying he'd scrap the GST and didn't. He compounded the lie by saying he didn't say it even though he was clipped on TV saying it. Another big example of a lying politician is Dalty McGuinty. Premier of Ontario, he broke about every election promise he made. Oh, but wait a minute, he's a Liberal. See the pattern? The Conservatives have a way to go to catch up, sure hope they don't even try.

1 "So let's ban cars and power plants and overpopulation. But not coffee." Whew, I'm glad we're not banning coffee, 'cause I really like my espresso. (NOT in styrofoam cups, please!) But can we ban the Suzukis instead?

2 Sign her up for a charter membership in the Climate Catastrophe Hypocrite Club along with all the do-gooder talkers like Al Gore and Madonna who have eco-footprints the size of Nunavut but lecture me about using too much electricty or to walk not drive. Bunch of lying, useless skanks the lot of them. Reformers ALWAYS want some one else to change.

3 "Reformers ALWAYS want some one else to change." I agree with all your other points, except that last sentence. It was because of the Reform Party's ideas that Paul Martin undertook some of the belt tightening measures needed to bring back Canada from the brink of fiscal bankruptcy. Your take on Gore, Madonna et al. is right on, though. It was hilarious to see one of the first bands in the Sydney concert sporting T-shirts with "stop nuclear power" or something similar written on them. It is my understanding that nuclear power is far cleaner than other types of energy, producing practically no GHGs. It is thanks to nuclear power that some European countries have been able to boast about meeting their Kyoto targets. France, for instance, has 59 nuclear power plants, producing about 80% of its electricity needs, whereas in Canada, nuclear power contributes about 15% of the total electricity supply. The European Union (when 25 members) has 148 nuclear power plants which provide 31% of its electricity requirements. France alone generates almost half (45%) of nuclear-generated electricity in the European Union.

4 It is thanks to nuclear power that some European countries have been able to boast about meeting their Kyoto targets. I wonder how many members of the Kyotology Church of Canada are also against nuclear power.

5 "I wonder how many members of the Kyotology Church of Canada are also against nuclear power." Well, for starters, according to Wikipedia: "[Elizabeth] May was born in Connecticut to affluent parents. Her mother was a prominent *anti-nuclear activist* and one of the original founders of the peace group SANE." Please understand, I'm not pushing nuclear power as THE solution. I would just like to point out that sometimes activists bring about unforeseen results that in the long run are more harmful than what they were fighting against. Perhaps if safer - after the Three Mile Island & Chernobyl incidents - nuclear power plants had been built, countries that rely heavily on fossil fuels would have lower GHG emissions now. Instead, what we have is more hot air emissions from the likes of the Suzukis, Gore, Madonna and all the other "priests & priestesses" of the K Kult.

6 Severn Suxuki should go all the way and demand that trees not be cut down for newsprint .. because every tree cut down reduces carbon absorption. No more Globe & Mail ... no more Toronto Star ... no more Halifax Herald .. no more La Presse .. no more Winnipeg Free Press ... a veritable decimation of the Liberal-friendly press. If we have a choice between toilet paper and all those Liberal-loving newspapers ... well I know what my choice would be .... !!!! STEP UP SEVERN SUXUKI ... STOP THE PRESSES .. SAVE THE TREES ...!!!

7 Speaking of the Suzukis, and I hope this is on topic, here in Ottawa we have giant billboards with David S. holding a compact fluorescent bulb. I suppose the point being to get us thinking Green. Is anyone aware of how much mercury is in one of those or what sort of breakage must occur for the stuff to expose a danger? I ask because of an article I saw on the freerepublic.com site about a woman in Conneticut whose child broke one is her room. A few phone calls and >$2,000 later after the Hazmat team left, the room was 'safe.' Is this going to be another 'unintended' consequence of the Green movement?

8 Apologies. Further to my last post, once I submitted I then read up on that subject on a neat fact sheet prepared by the US EPA. Apparently household CFLs are not legally considered hazardous waste and contain about 4mg of mercury. Always dispose of properly and if broken, vent the room thoroughly, sweep up fragments carefully - do NOT use a vacuum - and dispose of properly. I guess the woman in Conn got conned...? I'll go put myself in the corner for a timeout now for cluttering the board.

9 Phil: your post falls into the 'unplanned for' consequences theme of the thread. BTW: One of my front porch CF bulbs just died. They've only been out there 2 years. Regular bulbs last at least a year. So I'm not ahead on this one. And now have to research where I can return the bulb (in Ottawa they are considered hazardous waste but we only have 7 a year here in Ottawa and only 2 that are remotely (i.e. within 20KM) of my home. Here's an unexpected consequence. I'm trying not to buy anything except food. Therefore I don't go to stores. But to dispose of my CF bulb safely, I need to drive in to a store that accepts them for return. I know IKEA does but aren't mentioned on the the City of Ottawa recycling website, the only option there is a lighting store over 40km away from me or to line up one of the two days this year, 15km away from me at the hazardous waste depot. Being green sure takes a lot of energy.

10 These leftist halfwits don't think things through. How much water does it take to wash a coffee mug? I propose that everyone drink coffee straight from the spigot. This is actually a brilliant solution on several levels. First, coffee demand will drop significantly slowing related deforestation. Second, with the reduction in liquid intake, Sheryl Crow's 'single TP square' suggestion could become situationally viable.

11 anyone else questioning the 25 billion styrofoam cups per year? That would be 3 from each man, woman, and child each day of the year. I know I use maybe a half dozen per year, and my 2 year old uses none. I would guess we are fairly typical. So who the heck is using all these styrofoam cups?

12 Okay, I'm going to buck the trend here and defend Severn. At least the notion of using a coffee cup over a disposable cup is something. It's little but it's something. The whole global warming has become polarized where one side says it's a problem and we have to do all we can to stop it and the other side saying it's not a problem so why bother doing anything. Both sides won't work. If we all made minor changes in our lifestyle - such as using reusable containters over disposable ones where possible - it would cumulatively make a big difference. And even if global warming is a natural phenomenon, it never hurts to reduce our impact on the environment by reducing our demand for energy and resources. That said, one thing we can do with less of is environmentalists consuming resources at a shameful rate just so they can tell us why we have to reduce our consumption.

13 "The whole global warming has become polarized where one side says it's a problem and we have to do all we can to stop it and the other side saying it's not a problem so why bother doing anything. Both sides won't work." I agree the issue has become polarized, but I believe there's a third side, which includes me. Yes, there are things we should and can do for the environment, regardless of whether we believe that climate change is man-made or "mother-earth-and-sun" made. What people like me object to is the catastrophic, cataclysmic, "we're in crisis" kind of talk coming from lobby groups that are pushing their own agenda - not necessarily a pure, altruistic one as Steve has shown in other threads - and by assorted self-appointed gurus - can you say Gore? - who don't practice what they preach.

14 Gabby, Right on!

15 "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY. THEY ARE US." Pogo.

16 ...That's an UNOFFICIAL GERMAN re-translation, from Walt Kelly's original ENGLISH into DEUTSCHE back into ENGLISH....

17 If one pays attention to all what is being said about the environment and global warming, there is only one conclusion, just use common sense and carry on.