Suddenly the world hates canada

How did a country with two per cent of the world’s emissions turn global villain?


A Greenpeace billboard; the issue for the summit, says Jim Prentice, is getting to a treaty the U.S. and China will sign

For decades, Canada has taken pride in punching above its weight on the international stage. Now it appears we’re the ones absorbing the body blows. As scientists, activists, diplomats, and political leaders gather in Copenhagen for the United Nations’ 15th convention on climate change, Dec. 7 to Dec. 18, the northern hemisphere’s “helpful fixer” is undergoing a radical—and unrelentingly negative—image makeover. Canada “is now to climate what Japan is to whaling,” George Monbiot, a columnist for the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper, thundered late last month, citing the Harper government’s go-slow negotiating stance as “the major” obstacle to a new global agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. “Until now I believed that the nation that has done the most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States,” wrote Monbiot, a green campaigner and bestselling author. “I was wrong. The real villain is Canada.”

And he is not alone in that opinion. At a UN climate conference in Bangkok in October, delegates from developing countries walked out of a negotiating session (en masse, say environmental groups who were at the meeting; just five or six countries, counters Michael Martin, our ambassador for climate change) to protest Canada’s suggestion that the Kyoto Protocol—the basis for the Copenhagen negotiations—be replaced with an entirely new anti-warming pact. In early November, at another UN meeting in Barcelona, Canada was named “Fossil of the Week” by the 450 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in attendance for its efforts to “block or stall” climate negotiations. (“If the price for having strong, capable, tough negotiators at the table is being singled out,” Environment Minister Jim Prentice said at the time, “then so be it. Bring it on.”)

During the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago at the end of November, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon pointedly called for Canada to pick up the pace of negotiations and adopt “ambitious” greenhouse gas reduction targets. And a coalition of scientists and NGOs asked the 53-nation body to suspend Canada’s membership—a punishment that in the past has been meted out to such rogue states as Zimbabwe and apartheid-era South Africa—for “threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries” through its inaction on climate change.

“Canada is effectively negotiating in bad faith, undermining the whole agreement,” says Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who joined in the suspension calls. “At least everyone else is trying to reach their Kyoto targets. Canada is doing absolutely nothing.”

The question is how a country that is responsible for about two per cent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (China and the United States are collectively responsible for around 35 per cent) has come to take such a disproportionate share of the blame. The answer is a mixture of politics, bad timing, and—if Canada’s critics are to believed—ill intentions.

When Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government signed the Kyoto Protocol in April 1998, after years of international negotiations, there were significant doubts about whether the treaty would ever actually come into force. Although 187 countries are party to the deal, Kyoto only called for a few dozen developed nations to cut their emissions, and wasn’t legally binding until countries representing 55 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions as of 1990 gave it political ratification. (That occurred in December 2005 after the Russian Duma’s surprise endorsement.) Even then, Canada’s agreed target—a six per cent GHG reduction from 1990 levels by 2012—was based on another assumption: that the United States would at least try to move toward its own eight per cent reduction target, even if Congress failed to ratify the deal. But George W. Bush beat Al Gore in the 2000 election, and the issue of global warming went into a political deep-freeze in the U.S.

John Drexhage, one of Canada’s Kyoto negotiators, now director of climate change and energy for the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Ottawa, says the sensible thing for the Liberals to do at that point was return to the table and ask for a break. Instead, Chrétien pushed ahead, having Parliament ratify the treaty in December 2002, burnishing his own legacy, and leaving it to his successor, Paul Martin, to try to figure out how to live up to the commitment. “The Liberals do deserve some share of the blame,” says Drexhage. “It started with them trying to find loopholes—undermining the integrity of the treaty—rather than taking concrete action to reach our target.”

When Stephen Harper’s Conservatives took power in January 2006, they followed through on a campaign promise to flat-out reject Canada’s Kyoto obligations. Instead, the Tories have since pledged to reduce Canada’s GHG emissions by 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020 (effectively half of what we promised under Kyoto, eight years later), leaving the details in limbo until the Americans flesh out their own climate change plans. The new target falls far short of the 25-40 per cent reduction from 1990 levels that scientists say industrialized countries must achieve by 2020, if the world is to limit warming to just 2° C and avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. And many in the world community have expressed displeasure at Canada’s modest goals. But what appears to have really put noses out of joint is the aggressive role this country has continued to play in the negotiations over Kyoto’s next phase.

Time and again, Canada has seemed to find itself at odds with the international consensus around the negotiating table. At a Commonwealth meeting in Uganda in the fall of 2007, the Harper government blocked a resolution calling for a “binding commitment” on developed countries to reduce their emissions. (The Prime Minister said his government’s view was that all nations, including emerging economic powerhouses like India, needed firm targets.) At the UN meetings in Poznan, Poland, in 2008, Canada spiked language about “aggregate targets” for the biggest emitters, as well as references to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In Bangkok in October the Canadian delegation insisted that Kyoto-plus should also adopt 2006 as an optional base year—a change that would wipe out any obligation to deal with the country’s 26 per cent rise in GHG emissions since 1990. In Barcelona, Canada quibbled over how climate change adaptation funds might be used—arguing they should not compensate nations for “loss and damage” due to impacts like rising sea levels. Now widely seen as a perpetual objector, Canada has become as welcome at climate conferences as a skunk at a garden party.

M.J. Mace, a climate negotiator for Micronesia and the 37-member Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), is blunt when asked about her experiences with the Canadian delegation. “They’re certainly polite, but in terms of substance, it’s like they’re thumbing their nose at the process,” she says from Copenhagen. “And as we’ve gotten closer to putting numbers on the table, I think Canada has become more problematic.” Mace describes the process of building a UN-style consensus on climate change as painstaking. But as everyone else struggles to move just from point A to point B, Canada frequently demands a detour to the margins of the map. “They have a lot of creative ideas that lead to circular discussions.”

The departure from Canada’s traditional role as a bridge-builder at such international gatherings has not gone unnoticed. “Those who observe Canada’s position and tactics definitely agree that we’re not a constructive force,” says Dale Marshall, a policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation’s climate change program. “And Canada is an impor­tant enough player that you can’t just gavel through things they object to.” The finger pointing and name-calling as Copenhagen gets underway are really just a public outpouring of frustrations that have been building for years behind closed doors. Marshall says that among NGOs, Canada’s climate change reputation has been in the toilet for at least two years. “At the 2007 meeting in Bali, we tied the U.S. for ‘fossil of the day’ awards. But at every meeting since then, Canada has been the runaway winner. The ‘Colossal Fossil.’ ”

Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice doesn’t seem too rattled by the growing criticism of his government’s record. In an interview shortly before he jetted off to Denmark, he said such concerns exist mostly in the Canadian media, not the minds of other players at the climate change summits. “I can tell you that we’re at the table.

We’re constructive and we’re active,” said Prentice. “Not everyone always agrees with our positions, but we’re there to put Canada’s best interests forward, and we’re doing that.” Canada has been “forceful” in negotiations, but never obstructionist. “We’ve been quite outspoken in our view that the Kyoto Protocol is not working, but through it all we have been focused on achieving a new agreement,” said Prentice, citing projections that 97 per cent of emissions growth in coming years will come from developing nations outside the original deal, like China and India.

Canada does recognize the need to reduce its own emissions rapidly, added the environment minister, but such significant economic changes can’t be made overnight. “It’s everything from the kind of cars we drive to how we produce electricity, to our consumption patterns and everything in between.”

And for those who so clearly hope that the bad publicity will force Stephen Harper into a grand gesture at the summit, Prentice had a message: don’t hold your breath. Canada’s targets are firm, said Prentice, and the details of its climate change plan will be made public at the appropriate time—when it is clear what steps our NAFTA partners will take—and at home, rather than some global forum. “I know there’s angst about Canada’s role, but Canada is not the issue at the Copenhagen negotiations. It’s about bridging the gap between the developed and the developing world and arriving at a treaty that the Americans and the Chinese will sign.”

But if such a deal—either a political framework, or less likely a binding treaty—does emerge in Denmark, will Canada find itself on the wrong side of the table? Earlier this fall, a Pew Center on Global Climate Change report ranking the commitments of developed countries, lumped Canada in among the laggards. Japan has pledged to cut its emission 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020; Russia has done the same. The European Union target is 20 to 30 per cent. Even the current U.S. promises—a 17 per cent cut from 2005 levels by 2020—look to be more profound than what we have promised so far, especially once other U.S. measures like new fuel efficiency standards for cars and green energy initiatives are taken into account, which add up to a 28 to 34 per cent GHG reduction, according to another Washington think tank. (The U.S. is also promising an 83 per cent cut by 2050; Canada’s target is “60 to 70” per cent of 2006 levels by the same year.) And the signs heading into the summit are that the developing world is also getting on board. The Brazilian government has indicated that it will be bringing proposals for reductions of 38 to 42 per cent of current levels by 2020 to Copenhagen. China has announced a goal of cutting the intensity of its carbon emissions 40 to 45 per cent by 2020, from 2005 levels. (It’s a target that would mean slower emissions growth, but could see Chinese GHG output double.) India has embraced an intensity reduction of 20 to 25 percent by 2020 (which still might result in a 90 to 95 per cent increase in carbon emissions).

Miguel Lovera, a member of Paraguay’s negotiating team in Copenhagen, says he has been puzzled by Canada’s positions over the last few years. “We would have expected a much more compassionate role from them in solving this global problem.” Canada, he notes, is among the world’s top 10 GHG emitters in total (eighth), per capita (eighth), and cumulatively over the past century-and-a-half (10th). Lovera says Canada’s negotiating positions—like using 2006 rather than 1990 as the base year—seem to be motivated by a desire to protect Alberta’s oil sands development, rather than the planet. “How come the rest of the world is trying to reduce emissions, especially in fossil fuel production, and Canada has these plans to drastically expand the tar sands?” he asks. “That’s really difficult to grasp.” (Paraguay’s GHG targets coming into Copenhagen are a 49 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2017, and a 95 per cent reduction by 2050.)

In fact, for all the lip service about Canada’s cold climate, vast distances and energy-intensive industries, the reality is that going forward with the oil sands will be one of our biggest problems. A 2008 Environment Canada report estimated that GHG emissions from the oil sands will triple between 2006 and 2020, making it “the largest single contributor to Canada’s medium-term emissions growth.” That would make one energy project in one province responsible for 95 per cent of the country’s projected increase in industrial emissions over that period. In other words, whatever brownie points Canada wins internationally for Quebec’s pledge to reduce its GHG output by 20 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020 (the most ambitious target in North America) is nullified by Alberta’s goal of simply stabilizing emissions by 2020; a 58 per cent increase from 1990 levels.

Canada argues, quite rightly, that the oil sands have become an engine of economic prosperity for the entire country, and a vital source of secure energy in a precarious world. But the government’s aggressive efforts to protect our national interests, at perhaps the expense of global progress on climate change, haven’t won us a lot of sympathy. Earlier this fall, Rajendra Pachuari, the head of the IPCC, suggested that Canada take a time out on the oil sands, until carbon capture and storage techniques catch up to rapidly escalating emissions. And international campaigns against Alberta’s “dirty oil” are picking up steam. Now there’s a real danger that the oil sands project could join the seal hunt and the logging of old-growth forests as an emblem of this country’s perceived environmental indifference.

“Canada is going to have to square the circle on what they are doing in the oil sands,” says Melinda Kimble, a U.S. climate change negotiator during the Clinton years, now senior vice-president of the United Nations Foundation, a charity that backs the world body’s initiatives. “Everyone at the table has national interests.” Kimble says the disconnect between Canada’s role in the Kyoto talks—“a very vital and constructive voice”—and its behaviour now is all the more surprising given the turnabout in the U.S. thinking on climate change since Barack Obama took office. (As the summit opened in Copenhagen, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency followed through on the President’s pledge to declare greenhouse gases a danger to public health, paving the way for strict new emissions regulations.) The Harper government has frequently said it intends to follow the U.S. lead on climate change, but now that the direction is clear, is it necessary to wait for Congress to hammer out all the details? “I’m sure the Bush administration was very glad to see countries like Canada and Australia acting in solidarity with the U.S.,” says Kimble. “But there has been a leadership shift. I think Obama is determined to put in place greenhouse gas regulations.”

There have been suggestions that Canada is already feeling the cold shoulder because of its climate change foot-dragging. Ottawa certainly appeared taken aback by Obama’s announcement that he will attend Copenhagen. (Prime Minister Harper followed suit and announced his own trip a couple of days later.) At the Commonwealth meeting there were suggestions that Canada was “sandbagged” by a joint French-British announcement of a $10-billion climate change adaptation fund. UN watchers say Canada’s push for a rotational seat on the Security Council has been damaged, if not submarined, by climate concerns. And foreign diplomats in Ottawa have grown so frustrated that they have taken to calling NGOs to seek advice on how to get the Harper government’s attention on the environment file.

Jeremy Kinsman, a retired diplomat who served as Canada’s ambassador or high commissioner to 15 countries, including Russia and the United Kingdom, wonders why the government is bothering to stake out such a contentious position. “Canadians are acting as if we’re terribly important to the Copenhagen summit.” The reality, he says, is that “we’re going to have to accept whatever comes out of this. We’re going to have to go along with whatever the U.S. agrees.” Canada is vulnerable, especially on the oil sands, both in terms of its international image, and the looming climate change treaty. (Less generous credits for carbon sinks like our boreal forest would make Canada’s reduction targets even more difficult to achieve.)

Kinsman sees a disturbing trend, where a government with a “disdain” for diplomacy has undercut Canada’s traditional international role. “There’s a general impression that Canada is not very engaged in the world anymore, except in Afghanistan,” he says. But even then, from a seasoned diplomat’s perspective, there is never an excuse for the way Canada has been acting at the climate change table. “In the end, it’s not your position, it’s how you behave,” says Kinsman. “Influence is an asset and we’ve run it down.”


Suddenly the world hates canada

  1. Not "the world"

    A relatively few unaccountable elitist enviro-technocrats.

    And Canada's leadership is rightfully recognizing it is accountable to the Canadian public, not this group, who's motives have precious little to do with the Canadian public's well being.

    • We also have to be conscious of our trade partners, and those we preach to about economic management, human rights, political stability, and environmental issues.

      In terms of votes, the Canadian public holds a rather large stake. But so do international lobbyists, the not-Canadian corporations who own companies here and employ tens of thousands of Canadians…I could go on.

      Canada doesn't exist in a bubble; it never has, and never will.

    • Unforutnately this government seems only accountable to people who live in Alberta, and mine the oil sands. By my count “the Canadian Public” also exists outside of that province, and that industry.

      • and which provinces benefit from the equalization payments that flow from the oil sands? If you're anywhere bertween Canora Ont. and the the Maritimes chances are you do. Perhaps you should review your policy of biting the hand that feeds you.

        • I heard a figure today that the oil sands provides $117 billion in tax revenue. Imagine what kind of state the country would be in without those figures. Quebec (as you were alluding to) receives about $8 billion in equalization payments…New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and Manitoba received $6.2 billion total.

          • we survived without that tax revenue before the tar sands (worst ecological disaster on the planet) were exploited. 

    • Look, let's keep this simple. Oxygen, good. Carbon monoxide, bad. Clean water and air, good. Pollution, bad. Green energy, good. Oil sands, bad.
      Got it?

      • You…. brainwashed. You belittle people.

  2. I find Paraguay's criticism a particularly bitter pill to swallow. What could Harper be thinking? And I hear that the Sundanese government is also upset with the pace of negotiations and had to leave in protest. Whatever next?

  3. Well said Macleans. Now if we could only convince our government which is supposed to abide by our wishes. It will take time to get off oil and coal and develop sustainable/renewable energy sources such as wind and solar (we've done fairly well on hydro). Provinces, such as Ontarios 2009 Energy Act which has 20 year feed-in tariffs for renewable energy should be a well funded federal plan. It all takes time and we don't need to wait for the U.S. or anyone to develop such resources. Canada is going to be left behind. Besides, scientists are calling this a "climate crisis"; if we start now our reduction slope is around 3-4% to limit the world's mean temperature increase to only 2 deg. If we wait another decade, our reduction slope will have to be around 8-10%. 2 degrees will be no picnic to adapt to. We will have stronger storms. We will lose part of our boreal forest. If we go above 2 degrees, it's likely all over for future generations. That's why it's called a crisis, and our prime minister just doesn't get it, or too much of his funding comes from oil.

    • Hey Lee, the only crisis is in your mind. Climategate is real, do some reading somewhere other than the MSM.

    • Wind power is basically a non-starter in most of this country. Windmills are extremely inefficient while covered in ice or under 6 feet of snow. Solar is similarly problematic at high latitudes because we don't get a whole lot of sunlight, and what we do get is much more diffuse than farther south. As far as GHG efficient solutions go for energy production, we're basically stuck with a handful of available major hydro projects and nuclear. Unfortunately, neither solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, nor geothermal energy are capable of even remotely replacing oil. A huge portion of the world's oil doesn't go into energy or heat production, but into industrial processes like the making of plastics.

    • Lee what are you smoking, without Alberta Ontario would be totally bankrupt

  4. If I want to buy a bigger truck/SUV, isn't that MY decision, not the government's? If I want to turn up the heat on a cold night?

    Supposing they do pass this "ambitious target", how will they enforce it given the above problem? The only answer is a pretty hefty curtailment of my economic freedom.

    • Have you heard of price incentives. You will still be able to buy a big SUV (there is as yet no known cure for stupidity) its just that you will have to spend yourself into the poorhouse to do so.

      • Maybe so, but aren't I allowed to do that? You're ignoring the fundamental problem here. There's only one way to *ensure* that we comply with the emissions target in our present circumstances.

      • The trouble is, some SUVs are actually less expensive than the newer environmentally conscious hybrids. So how does this incentive thing work again?

        • well it does require someone to actually implement it. the key isn't the price of the vehicle. the key is to make the price of gas reflect its actual costs (from extraction through cleanup of pollution associated with its discharge and all related costs) and the cheap SUV will soon look unaffordable relative to its more expensive hybrid counterpart.

    • More investment in Cellulosic Ethanol distilleries would mean that you could keep you big SUV. I'm sure you heard horror stories of radical steps being proposed to save fuel and kill gas guzzlers. None of that would be necessary if we invest in sustainable fuels. Currently the government is investing some million dollars in corn ethanol but that's not enough. Corn ethanol still has a net carbon output, as opposed to cellulosic ethanol which has a net carbon input.

      • Ethanol is 10% less efficient than standard gasoline, not to mention it also requires distillation until 99.5% pure ethanol to be combustible without risking the well-being of your engine. I've spoken to numerous people who manage truck fleets for business services. After trying to switch to ethanol-based fuel, they noticed they were getting less fuel efficiency, and paying more. It's simple chemistry, the combustion energy of ethanol is less than octane.

        This is all ignoring the ethical implications of growing food for fuel.

        • That's not the case with cellulosic ethanol. It uses fiber(scraps stalks, wood, hemp) not sugar. It requires less distillation and powers its own distillation process. The EPA figures that from farm to tank cellulosic ethanol produces 85% less carbon than regular fuel where as corn based ethanol may not reduce carbon emissions at all.

          You're right that ethanol is less energy dense than fossil fuels but in a carbon market that's irrelevant because the less emission intensive fuel will be subsidized at the expense of the more emission intensive fuel.

          Your people, did they convert their fleet to E85? Because unless your vehicle is designed for that fuel, E85 will eat up the rubber seals.

          • You also can't make it on the same scale as conventional oil by the very nature of its source, and wouldn't really be a sustainable economic practice..

            I like the idea of it, I really do. I just don't think it has a realistic shot.

    • You know what. Someway or another, the effects will have an impact on you directly. Yes that's right, forget that new technology blah blah will pave the way, the fact is selfish pricks will have to change their mentality and have some regard for other people.

      Stop acting like it's your god given right to drive an SUV, have an outdoor heated swimming pool, a super large house etc etc. It's not your right, it's a luxury you've been given.

      People need to get over their imaginary 'rights' to have whatever they want, and realise with rights come responsibilities.

      • Let go of the Anger… strive to be merely Perturbed.

      • Wrong. Its a luxury he has EARNED.

      • Sure lets all become slaves to a global Climate Government! The whole point of being free is doing what you want! Why should I work for a living if I can't buy an SUV. You can do what ever you want, I will do what I want, that is what makes a free nation!

    • According to the article, Canada is against curbing its emissions because it wants to preserve the Alberta oil sands project. Climate action is action on a macro-scale, not the difference between one or two degrees in your house.
      You mentioned your economic freedom, but you didn't mention the tragedy of the commons. The environment (and everyone in it) is paying for every emission you make. We ask that you be courteous, because the atmosphere is free when it really shouldn't be.

      • Well since the atmosphere is Free, but shouldn't be, why don't you keep all that hot air your blowing around in your mouth and free the air from us listening to your garbage.

    • You're right, it is your decision.
      But consider at what cost and impact to the world around you.
      It is very human to view the world from the miopic 'me' perspective.
      In the short run it serves us well.
      But not likely in the long run.
      Change is not as difficult as you might think.
      When viewed with purpose, rather than resistance, its amazing how things can work out.

    • Guess who has been reading "ME. MYSELF AND I " books and putting it in practice while some of us try to reduce our carbon imprint.

    • fuck economic freedom, this is the fate of the earth

  5. Maybe we should just pull a Kyoto: Canada hereby commits to reduce carbon emissions: Our target is 5% of 1867 levels. This should be, what, a 98% reduction from current levels? Everybody sign here, and we go home. Then we pull a Chretien-Martin, and ignore it. Obviously the worst thing to do is to be honest, pull a Harper, and correctly state that the commitment is impossible.

    • That wasmy suggestion, I abhor these Eco terrorist who think we have bundles of cash hidden away.I do my part for mother earth, I always have. I refuse to be told I cant drive as much and I cant fly as much.I refuse to buy carbon credits to make fat cats like Al gore look fatter

      • You can do those all you want. Just expect to pay for the total costs.. extraction and clean up.

    • Here,Here! I agree. Tell them what they want to hear.As 98% of the global emissions are coming from outside of canada and the rest of the world that is responsible is only looking for a scape goat to take minds eye away from the real culprits.
      THEY know who they are!!!Each day I read the paper and wonder how people can face themselves in the morning when they commit the crimes they do,and when I see a headline on the front page of Macleans like this,it makes me feel "the world is heading to hell in a hurry" !!!

    • Sorry madeyoulook your conservative ploy doesn't work. Harper is not honest, he showed us how a sulking adult child can walk away from his rersponsibilities to sip coffee at our expense when he can't have his way, which is every other day since he has been in power.

  6. Exactly what I was thinking madeyoulook.
    Let's just fake it rather than being so damn honest..!!!!
    Just go for the photo op like Chretien and Dion.

    More of this:

    Federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says he knew nothing about a plan to massively expand production in the Alberta oilsands to meet the demand in the U.S.
    , even though discussions on speeding up the regulatory review process were launched by former prime minister Paul Martin when Dion was the environment minister.

  7. I'm surprised that no-one has commented on the fact that the reason for all this world-wide reaction – yes it IS world-wide – is that this government is using the same tactics and attitudes within the international arena that they employ here at home with their ultra-partisan, abusive strategies – arrogance, condescension, contempt, double-speak . A lot, maybe most, of us don't like it. The international community sure doesn't like it. I don't blame them.

    • Blame them for what, refusing to sign an agreement they know we can't achieve? Kyoto was a disaster.

      This government is there to represent Canadian interests,
      not Greenpeace or Haiti or China or 77 beggar nations.

      • Wow. You really have no faith in Canadian ingenuity or productivity do you? Why do you hate Canadians?

        • Hating Canadians? Hypberbole typical of your lot. That's a pretty big jump. Not wanting to beggar the country because of pie in the sky, feel good BS aimed at massaging the delicate feelings of greenpeace and David Suzuki? I have faith in our ingenuity and our productivity but I also don't believe that we should squander our money on unachievable goals based on manipulated science and outright lies.

          • In case you haven't noticed, I"ve decided to channel Baird today.
            Blame him.

          • The Harper style is hardly diplomatic or constructive and frankly the Harperites have no faith in Canadians. Their real faith is in the the hole drillers and earth movers every one else can go to hell.

    • Poll last week had 77% of Canadians NOT wanting a signed deal out of Copenhagen.
      The Boss says no.

    • I couldn't agree with you more. I am so sick of Harper & his "my way or the highway" approach . I am totally ashamed. embarrassed & appalled at his dragging Canada's good name through the mud. Could he be a not so secret climate change denier?? He did label it a "socialist plot" a few years ago & we haven't forgotten. Many Canadians wont forget this at next election!!!

    • Thanks for saying that Richard. In politics there will be differences of interests and differences of opinions – that's what makes it politics. But it is possible for these differences to be negotiated in a modest, well-informed, respectful, truth-seeking, open and honest way. To the extent that Canada can exert claims to leadership in international policy development ( peace-keeping, ozone protection, the land mine ban etc.) it is exactly that Canadian way of engaging that helped us build such a reputation. And just as you say – when our government fails to behave that way – on climate change, or detainee abuse – our place in the world is diminished accordingly.

  8. Does anyone know what we've set the Earth's temperature thermostat to this year?

    Mankind such as it is, finally being able to control the temperature of the planet after millions of years of heating and cooling, ice ages warm periods etc.

    And who would have thought that taxes and wealth redistribution was all that was needed to be the effective dial on the thermostat?

    But pay no attention to the "computer model" that says it is all so, predicting massive warming over the past decade, when in fact cooling took place.

    No need to be even mildly skeptical in the face of this, that the arctic sea ice extant is at "normal levels" again, whatever that is, those pesky revealing climate gate emails and manipulated data, and many other startling facts.

    Let's get on with turning that "earth thromostat".

    Can we adjust it to make Canada a little warmer?

    • The push is on as the takers/profiteers realize governments around the world are slowly losing the backing of their citizens.

    • It's funny you mentioned sea ice. I have currently been researching it, and this is what I found:

      "There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people. Data gaps exist in some vulnerable parts of the globe undermining the ability to provide precise early warning for countries and populations at risk. If the trend continues and governments fail to agree on deep and decisive emission reductions at the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, it is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges in the 21st century."

      Please refer to this website for more! It's from the United Nations Environment Programme.

      • Really?!? The most damning quote you pulled from the UNEP report talks about "data gaps" making it difficult to to "provide precise early warning" and then piles on with a bunch of speculation filled with phrases like "it is possible" and "may completely disappear".

    • Canada is indeed one of the worst countries in the world and Canada is blissfully unaware of it. The world knows how much newcomers to Canada are humiliated and exploited while Canada naively speaks of their having achieved the Canadian dream. Is it a dream or a nightmare? There may be political democracy in Canada but is there economic democracy? Why are residents so ill-treated? There is evidence of growing disparity between the haves and have-nots. Most have-nots are immigrants. Why? The Constitution speaks of equal rights. In reality these rights are unequal. At individual level the untold and shameful distortion of the spirit of the Contitution amounts to crime to humanity. So, if the world is laughing at Canada, it knows more than what Canada wants it to. The world looks on powerless aas its people are being ill-treated in one of the most inhospitable, hypocritical countries around.

      • Hey if you don't like it I hear Nigeria is very welcoming. They too think Canada is a terrible place.

    • Thanks for that. I have a good laugh at all the "climate change" hysteria…yes people the climate changes. It's changed before we got here and will change after we're gone.

      • It's somewhat reassuring to note that some are finally arriving at an understanding that the earth's climate is constantly changing and there is precious little we can do about it. If the earth is indeed warming (I personally don't know if it is or isn't),then it would seem that we would be better served to concentrate our efforts and resources on dealing with the expected changes.

    • Man like cool – Puts the phony "hocky stick" in a real world light – good work – thanks – Always knew it was a joke – the weather man cannot even tell the weather next week and these guys are trying to predict global warming? And its caused by what we breath out CO2? Why not outlaw O2 and get it over with. (kill everything that breaths? ) Its just nuts.

      • You're right, Ken, The weather man can't even tell the weather next week. It's true. I'm a roofer and I consult the weather man every day — usually once in the morning and once in the evening — And you know what? The weather man can't even tell the weather next week. BUT when the weather man tells the weather tomorrow and the next day, he/she is dead on. Right on. Usually accurate always. I wouldn't consult the weather services every morning and every night if they didn't get more and more accurate with their predictions as the weather actually approached closer. BUT The weather man can't even tell the weather next week. It's true. When the weather man predicts some particular change coming next week, I know that they can only guesstimate when that changing weather pattern will arrive, AND YOU KNOW WHAT, KEN? That weather change which the weatherman predicted would come next week, doesn't often arrive on the exact same date that it was predicted, BUT USUALLY IT DOES HAPPEN WITHIN A DAY OR TWO — JUST LIKE IT WAS PREDICTED.

      • You can believe what you want to believe, Ken. I'd probably sit in the pub with you and share a few beers and say stuff like, "Yeah, you're right. Nobody can really prove a thing about climate change." And I"d share the beer with you and wish you well at the end of the night and I'd hope that if it turns out that we're about to boil up, that you'd catch on quick enough to get out in time.MEANTIME though, Ken, if you don't mind, I'm gonna just hop on my bike and carry my tools to work in my backpack or bike-trailer. My entire conversion to self-propelled travel was prompted by ""the possibility of global warming," something for which I had absolutely no proof and for which I still have absolutely no proof.
        But whether or not it's a fact doesn't matter to me anyway.
        I'm now completely unplugged from the gas station racket. I pay absolutely nothing for van insurance anymore. I'm noticeably healthier and I've probably added five years of vibrant living to my lifespan. SO WHO CARES WHO'S RIGHT. Have a nice life, Ken.

    • may want to take a look at the time frame in which these changes occurred. the degree changes in my life time happened over the course of a few thousand years historically. nobody doubts that the earth went through warm and cold periods, rather they are worried about the speed at which we are changing and the catastrophic effect it has on ecosystems particularly to the south. small changes in atmospheric temperatures result in the melting of polar caps. Which means if sea levels rise even by a few meters coastal cities will underwater and millions of people will be displaced. try putting a price tag on moving the majority of the world away from the coastline. If you don't think that the world is warming up just take a look at this video.

  9. The answer is easy – because the MSM has lost all creditability and rather than provide accurate information on the topic, they just repeat whatever the environmentalist say!!!. The MSM has no credible journalists that understand the process of research and science, they are nothing more than reporters and they report whatever is easiest to report. There is no oversight by editors or publishers. And in many instances the reporters are in bed with the global warming people who continue to feed them whatever line they want printed and bingo its printed.

    Unless MSM can gain back some credibility by presenting balanced views on all issues (not just global warming), more and more people will STOP reading and buying their product. We have seen this with the adoration of The Obama, Global warming, the recession, the bailouts, the Afghan war, and on and on and on.

    • It's somewhat reassuring to note that some are finally arriving at an understanding that the earth's climate is constantly changing and there is precious little we can do about it. If the earth is indeed warming (I personally don't know if it is or isn't),then it would seem that we would be better served to concentrate our efforts and resources on dealing with the expected changes.
      To do otherwise seems somewhat akin to standing in the Bay of Fundy at low tide with your spread hands held out in front of you and yelling "Stop." while the tides continue to do as they have for thousands of years and will likely continue for thousands (millions?) more.
      On the other hand, I guess this kind of thinking would be too much of a stumbling block to efforts to increase government power and distribute the world's wealth based on a hoax…

  10. In this matter I wish Canada's opponents the best of luck. They should keep in mind that the Vancouver Olympics provide an excellent opportunity to further embarass Harper and his tar sand backers but the environmental lobby has demonstrated great creativity lately. I think we may get some great entertainment out of vancouver that has nothing to do with sports. __

    • More Copenhagen style protests?
      Because violence really gets the public's sympathy. No class.

    • But China gets a free pass on public executions… you guys amaze me.

    • Hooray! You're right–with any luck, the Canadian government will be embarrassed at the Olympics. I have always been grateful and proud to be a Canadian, but over the past couple years I have felt compelled to apologize to friends/acquaintances from other countries on behalf of our government's position on climate change and unwillingness to participate cooperatively in meetings to preserve the planet for our children. At this point, I welcome any influence from other countries to to help us petition our own government.

      • "have felt compelled to apologize to friends/acquaintances from other countries on behalf of our government's position on climate change"
        You're kidding me right? You should apologize to me and my fellow Canadians for wasting oxygen.

      • Hey jacko if you are so embarrassed to be Canadian why don't you just get on a plane, oh right they burn fuel that won't work because that would go against your religion right all that c02,well may be you can swim somewhere, or all the hot air people like you blow you might be able to float anyway point is love it or leave it loser, your kind we just don't need.

    • great idea. a bunch of long haired, greasy morons smashing windows to get a point across that they can't even articulate. yup, a country with 30 million people and the 2nd largest land mass is taking crap for it's carbon footprint by india and others like it who have one hand in our pocket already. i just don't see a problem here. the next time i say i'm embarrased to be canadian will be the first.

    • i hope you're right panem, the winter olympics is a great place for protest with all the world watching, and you can be sure that those folks out in BC are ahead of the curve when it comes to environmental conciousness. so bring it! our Government won't listen to the voters, or the peoples of the planet. talk means nothing at the money table. they're content to ride the coattails of american (in)action, which is actually an old Bush/Conservative game of pass the buck. we need public outcry, and action from other nations to help us change the will of this government! i too, am embarassed at our current leadership. its disgusting.

  11. Anyone can set the GHG reduction bar really high (or low) and look like a hero and then go home and continue with the status quo. I applaude Canada for projecting realistic reductions. What sickens me is the so called Canadians who are using Copenhagen as the forum to air their complaints to the world. This reminds me of the people who run down and criticize their family members in front of others at social functions. These people make me sick and if the opportunity ever arises to reject them and their ideas comes up I will do so on that principle alone. Ontario and Quebec whom have no qualms about using energy or sharing in it through government revenue sharing programs have the gall to now proclaim that they are washing their hands of anything to do with the Alberta tar sands. Hypocrites.

  12. The smart move would be for Canada to just get up and leave, I don't want any money sucking third world dick-tater, demanding my tax dollars so he can go on killing his own people.

    The truth is, Canada is still punching above its weight, they are the voice of reason in the vampire-fest, hosted by the warmies.

    • ‘British police say they have arrested three environmental activists who scaled the wall of the Canadian High Commission in London and cut down the Canadian flag.'

      Enough already, PMSH should call home everyone, Ont and Que Ministers can hitch a ride home with Greenpeace.

      • I'm still wondering why they took them down. couldn't we just leave the greenies up there, for a week or so?

        • That's too short, a month would be good.Funny, they wouldnt be brave enough to try this is in China, bloody fools

    • Canada ranks 8th in the world in GHG emissions, and 8th in the world in per capita emissions, says the article above.

      Developing countries have a very important role to play in future climate development, as their rates of emission are likely to increase the highest within the next few years. Refusing to negotiate assistance for developing and third world countries undermines the idea that this must be a GLOBAL movement against climate change. It has already been said that the US and Canada will not assist countries like China, but we must deal with everyone.
      I think Harper's appearance at the summit shows some courage, though he's embarrassing me up there.

  13. Yes, that might be an excellent idea: countries should threaten to boycott the Vancouver Olympics in protest of our intransigence and duplicity in climate negotiations.

    • I'm not sure we would miss either Paraguay or Sudan at Whistler.

    • think of all the ghg's they would save by staying home!!!!

  14. That statement overlooks how many non-Albertans have stake in the oil sands. Many of the projects up there around Ft. McMurray are very international in hiring of professional degrees and very broad based in Canadian workers from coast to coast.
    More to the point, the ownership of exploration sites is mostly held by foreign interests and investors. To say that it's Canada's emissions fails to negate others profiting from it. Kind of like our textiles being made in China but lack of rights by those workers being only China's fault.
    Given that we can't get the ten provinces and three territories to agree on basic environmental policy; why is it a surprise to anyone that we have lower expectations that targets can be reached?

  15. Every Canadian should be completely & utterly embarassed by the appallingly ignorant, arrogant & non-cooperative attitudes & action of our government in Copenhagen. In a four year period, Harper has destroyed a respected and globally honoured reputation that took 150 years to build. We are all becoming embarrassed to be Canadian because of this man, his government and his dinosaur, militaristic, and incredibly self-serving policies and practises. He is absolutely the worst thing that has ever happened to Canada, and is turning us into little more than a non-democratic banana republic of the North.

    • Wrong CanNurse, for a refreshing change Canada is saying what it really thinks and what is realistic for our country and its citizens. For too long we have been fence sitters and apologists, it is time to stand up and be counted truly. Most (not you) Canadians are logical and possess a degree of common sense and our present government is exhibiting that at this conference. Shame on the Canadians who are looking for their 15 minutes of fame by criticizing publicly our wonderful country. A##HOLES.

    • I'm Canadian and I'm 'no't ashamed, rather proud in fact, that this suck -est is being treated with the contempt it deserves.

      • I'm embarrassed for you. On behalf of your parents.

        • and you are the one that goes by anon? lol

    • "and is turning us into little more than a non-democratic banana republic of the North." Even if I agreed with everything else you said, that right there would make me go back and check my sources. You are without a doubt EXACTLY what you're complaining about. he's not anti-democratic because he was voted in and shows no sign of interfering with the democratic process. In the case that you misused the word democracy (big surprise for a liberal, look at the contradiction of what they stand for and the connotation of their name) for freedom, forcing people to do things like changing what they drive, what type of fuel they use, is not increasing freedom. I can also see how a nurse might have a slightly skewed perspective in that respect as well. All in all, read a dictionary, then read all the facts you think support your case, and with your newfound knowledge of the english language, maybe you will begin to understand you just spouted out a bunch of non-sensical bigotry.

      • Um… having the governor general dismiss parliament moments before a non confidence vote is democratic? The conservative gov. does not control the majority of the house. Control being the operative word.

    • Sorry, I don't feel the least bit embarassed. I would be if that idiot Dion was over there signing off on the end of Canada's economy and cutting cheques to 3rd world mass murderes so he could pretend he "saved the planet". Thank God Harper is there…and I have never voted for him…but i'm warming up to the idea.

    • ' Harper has destroyed a respected and globally honoured reputation that took 150 years to build.'

      LOL, Well why don't we ask an renoun international figure what he thought of Canada before Harper was elected:
      Iffy says
      Canadians are nothing but a bunch of herbivorean boyscouts (blue berets)
      Iffy says
      the Canadian flag looks like a beer can label

    • Sorry, I don't feel the least bit embarassed. I would be if that idiot Dion was over there signing off on the end of Canada's economy and cutting cheques to 3rd world mass murderes so he could pretend he "saved the planet". Thank God Harper is there…and I have never voted for him…but i'm warming up to the idea.

    • It is shocking that you seem to be endorsing giving in to the demands of others. Others whose interests may not be and probably are detrimental to Canadians as a whole. I cannot accept the attitude by a small group of Canadians that the oilsands development in Alberta's gain alone. The benefits of the development of this huge resource benefits all Canadians is some form, direct employment, secondary employment, government transfer payments – Alberta in 2008 was the only province paying into this program – if you are from Quebec, your province received $16 BILLION in 2008) How do you replace that? Consider that the oilsands account for 5% of the 2% of Canada's CO2 totals.
      Finally we have hard negotiators at the table, pressing Canadian concerns.

    • Thank you very much for saying this. I am embarrassed to have Harper represent me in Copenhagen as well. I have a few things to say to my fellow commenters, though:
      wafer: Writing A##HOLES in your argument made me read no farther. If you can't make a coherent argument without swearing, then you don't deserve my time.
      Graham: This is an against-the-man argument. Did you have anything to say about Copenhagen, or did you just want to bring someone down? By non-democratic banana republic, CanNurse was noticing that Harper was appealing to the invisible hand of the free market to regulate Canada's economy (with regards to the preservation of the Alberta tarsands.) In my opinion, the problem with a Conservative government at this critical time is that we need to think of these climate talks constituting a GLOBAL movement. The atmosphere is shared. It gets taken advantage of because it's free. We need to fix something here, and to do that we're going to have to do something democratic.

      • Well, 350forthewin, since wafer wrote A##HOLES as the very last word of his or her missive, there was actually no need for you to read any further because there was no argument left for you to read, now was there?
        Sheesh, think and re-read posts before you comment people.

  16. No one hates Canada! Green Peace, other environmental groups and fascist dictatorships around the world feel they can bully us.. period. Bottom line Canada is being punished because of our very small population. Most energy using countries have three to 10 times our population so we end up with a high carbon footprint per capita. The case against us is silly. Close down Canada entirely and we account for 2% of green house gases. Cut back 15-20 or even 50% of 1990 carbon production amounts to .5 %-.75% which will far from save the world. Canadians are certainly not villains. Our prime minister could do the politically correct thing by promising the convention the moon and the sky like any good Liberal. But he provides honest leadership, holding out for ALL the major polluters such as China, the U.S, India to agree together. In the end Canada will be the unsung hero of the world. The Liberals sabotaged Kyoto and it would be a travesty for Canadians to try and keep it alive. Kyoto is simply what is wrong about Canada.. making false promises for world favor– Steven Harper is what is right about Canada… making honest proposals that will benefit everyone! Third-world dictators simply see Canada as a week-kneed cash cow. Without Harper we would be! Our own media in Canada is the very worst enemy making us look the worst when truly we are one of the best and should be proud of the work we do around the world. Fire the hate spewing columnists I say!

    • wonderful posting John

    • hmmm, uh, so, you do know that Kyoto was the one that didn't include everyone, but now the big deal about copenhagen is that EVERYONE, including China, the U.S and India and proposing deep cuts to their emissions. That is what is embarasing, kyoto you right wing nuts could argue against, now the entire world is proposing to work together to cut emissions everywhere. Harper on the other hand, would rather cut his friends in Alberta deals that deal with the future of our country.

      • He is looking at the big picture.Try and find 60 billion lying around, that can go to keep all the social programs that Quebec likes alive – it can't be done.

    • It's not the fact that Canada represents ONLY 2% of total GHG emissions per year, it's that we're 8th in the world per capita emitters! We're a big waste of space up here with all of our fantastic natural resources!
      I agree that Canadians are not villains, but we do only fight for our best interests. It's easy to be sitting on top of the country with resources galore, but it's not so easy to make this argument when you're in Tuvalu, where 5 metres of sea level rise could devastate the whole country.
      Steven Harper has made a decision to ignore the global plea at his feet. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community supports action in Copenhagen, but he still cannot give up on the wealth coming from the tarsands. This project could be done with much less environmental impact, but Harper can't wait. We need oil now, dirty or not – we've got one of the countries richest in natural resources, after all.
      PS: In case you don't believe in climate change, try the Stern report. There are lots of fun graphs and stats!

    • well done! i hope we can keep our money in canada and with mr. harper leading we have the best opportunity to do so

  17. Canada punching above its weight? Where does this weird idea come from? Yes, it was true in the late 1940s and 1950s in the immediate post-war period, but in the world of Canada in the 1990s? Gimme a break.

    • Yes – it is a silly cliche, abused over and over again by the press. The truth is that Canada's contribution to wining WWII with men and materials is what gave us our clout, and we have been living off that ever since.

      As for Copenhagen, we are just too damn polite to tell the self-styled international community to take their criticisms and shove them.

  18. ‘British police say they have arrested three environmental activists who scaled the wall of the Canadian High Commission in London and cut down the Canadian flag.'

    Enough, when they start ripping down our flag,
    time to leave Copenhagen.

  19. As much as articles like this wish to portray the voices of highly vocal politically motivated radicals, as "the world"

    In the real world, major polls are showing a far healthier skepticsm to this "settled science"and an increasing awareness that this has more to do with a new modified socialism under the green banner.

    Polls done in the US and Britain, and now government turmoil in Austrailia, show a plurality of the populace is turning against AGW and its policies.

    It may be your "world" but its not THE world. Not by a long shot.

    • "…healthier skepticsm to this "settled science"and an increasing awareness that this has more to do with a new modified socialism under the green banner'

      Yes, skepticism is invariably healthy…but the modified socialism is just a projection from a mind that doesn't get out much.

      • It was a commentary about a greater movement, which I am witnessing.

        I encourage you to check out any news item on AGW that allows comments, then read through those comments. Not just here, but in England, Aus, US: the anger is palpable, and the themes closely mirror what I'm referring to.

        Then there's learned scholars like the esteemd Dr. Krauthammer, who's most recent article says precisely that: AGW is the new socialistic movement. It's recieving widespread attention.

        Then there are the basic indicators that socialists, almost to a person, feverishly are in favour of it, whereas libertarians, moderates ect, much more likely to be skeptical.

        It's your right to disagree, but to ascribe my point to a projection from my little 'ol mind belies the true breadth of those who, in increasing numbers, are holding those views.

        • news item on AGW that allows comments

          How many of those posts are goons hired by industry or other interests, like we saw in the States during their health care town halls? While I don't have anything against people who wish to voice a contrary opinion, the anonymity of the Internet makes it even more vulnerable to subterfuge than in-person town hall meetings.

  20. Im an American, and am perplexed about this title…

    How can someone hate Canada? It's like asking how can someone hate a dolphin or a turtle or a kitten?

    Just doesnt make sense! People either have good opinions about Canada or have none. I never heard someone said "I hate Canada!".

    • A dolphin, a turtle or a kitten? A beaver maybe? Beavers are known and celebrated (in patriotic circles) for their natural trait of building dams on rivers and streams, including mainstreams.

    • Unfortunately Canada itself is full of self loathers that cannot rest unless they find something wrong with their country. Sad really.

    • Thanks Yank girl for a measure of prespective and sanity. Rest assured the small(and getting smaller by the day bunch of eco-nuts that are sooo concerned about our reputation at Starbucks, or some other pretentious artsy-fartsy crowd gathering will soon be able to have their meetings in a phone booth. Preferably in a cold, unheated one in Edmonton, where it was -45C yesterday. Cheers

  21. Excellent points HTH.

    On the origins of Canada's G-8 seat, you are absolutely correct. The Europeans asked U.S. President Gerald Ford to invite Italy to the second meeting of the G-5, which had first met in France in 1975. Ford and his Japanese counterpart Takeo Miki got together and insisted that Canada also be included in order to offset the Eurocentric imbalance of the new G-7. Canada would never have been included if the Europeans had not wanted Italy there.

  22. This idea of free markets and personal responsibility was only properly introduced to me a couple years ago, but you have got your stuff together. I've seen maybe 5 posts from you and you've enlightened me on many things I was suspicious about but never found evidence to back it up. It didn't help that everyone who grew up in the 60s around me keeps repeating "you weren't there" or "that's not how it went, and I know, because I was there", and until now my main arguement on a lot of points has been that they have no facts, but with none to back up my scepticism, with the arguement chalked up to my impetuous youth. You've given me a lot of hard data, especially against hardcore Canadian Pats (I live near Toronto in a small hockey town, you get beat up if you don't like Canada) who do not listen to scepticism about our well-meaning country without the truth in black and white. So thanks again for enlightening me, your wisdom does not only fall on deaf ears.

  23. Still enamored by the sound of your own voice, I see.

  24. Yea, we shouldn't be ashamed for taking a stand and telling the rest of the world we're not going to agree to arbitrary percentage targets when we are not a big part of the problem. What, because we produce a lot of oil we automatically are part of the problem? That's assuming there is a problem, which I'll do for the sake of making this point clear. We are a low density extremely conscientious nation already, and we will continue to sell our oil because other countries are continuing to buy it. The reason the Europeans and Japan are the most concerned and judgemental is because they're the ones packed all together creating a possibility of a problem, but they are also creating government controls so their people live longer? Wow, oil and CO2 have become a bigger scapegoat than money for the world's problems.

  25. It's quite simple why Canada is portrayed as the bad guy in Copenfraud…it's convienient. If the fraudsters tried these dispicable tactics against China or India they would storm out of the love in accusing them of racism. Igoring the fact that it's impossible to see across the street in Peking is the height of hypocracy. A thousand childen with murcury poisioning. Gonna fix that? No we'll just move the kids a few blocs down the street and carry on. And not a word from the eco-phonies. I wish Harper would just tell them to take a flying **** and leave. All the major polluting countries intend to do squat anyway. This fraudulent exercise is going to accomplish nothing(thank God) wether we are there or not. Soo tired of self rightous lefties who demand Canada be boy scout to the world.

    • They also know that there are a lot of Canadians whose political ideology is something like "we must do whatever it takes for Europeans to say we're cool".

      • You are onto something there. I was always baffled with that odd Canadian trait. Ironic when you consider our forefathers all got the hell out of there, with the constant warfare, classism and starvation.

        • It's like teenagers wanting to impress the "cool kids".

      • I doubt there is another country on earth that worries more incessantly about what other countries think.

    • The fraudsters are the politicians and their crony suite that show up to vacation, wine and dine at these conferences at our expense and end up doing nothing. If it weren't for the so called "lefties" most people would only hehawing and sitting on their hands being led by the nose by these fundamentalists that pretend to govern. Frank Zappa was right when he titled his famous tune: "Amerika drinks and goes home". We could also paraphrase Pierre Burton's SMUG CANADIANS to describe a similar situation of talking one's walk sitting in one's easy chair ranting on the web. Sorry, I'll take leftists anytime to get the job done and denounce redneck politics that has invaded this country as an excuse.

  26. From “The Business Case on Protecting the Climate”, with Hunter Lovins:

    “The science doesn't matter. I say that with all due deference to great scientists who are spending their lives trying to get the models to catch up to observed reality… But let's assume that the climate skeptics are right; I wouldn't go to the casino on those odds, but if all you care about is being a profit-maximizing capitalist, you'll do exactly the same things you'd do if you were scared to death about climate change, because we know how to protect the climate at a profit. And the best companies are starting to do this…”

    But then she goes on to talk about boring stuff like companies and cities making profits through efficiency, while surpassing their goals for CO2 reductions. Companies like Dow Chemical, DuPont, Tesco, STMicro-electronics; cities like Osage, Iowa, and Sacramento, California.

  27. The jury is still out in terms of 100% certainty on the balance of responsibility between us and the sun, in terms of causes of global warming.

    In the meantime, there are basically two stories being presented. One is a story of victimhood, "Woe is us, we're helpless victims of the capricious star 93 million miles away; we're simply the fire hydrant being showered by it's yellow rays each time it lifts it's leg in a solar flare". The other story is one of accountability, and it says "Humans caused this, and humans can solve it." Regardless of waiting for 100% certainty, which story is more empowering, and hopeful?

    And I, personally, have noticed since childhood that generally speaking, neither governments nor corporations nor citizens have warmly embraced the reality that our use of fossil fuels have various consequences, or enthusiastically called for incorporating these long-term costs into the price of energy; ie: the $120 billion in health care costs that the New York Times attributed to smog last month. The resistance against accepting a large human factor in global warming doesn't surprise me in the least.

  28. In 2008, the nine Texas investor-owned utilities (IOUs) exceeded their statewide legislative energy efficiency goals for the sixth straight year. The utilities achieved 202 megawatts (MW) of peak demand reduction, which was 76% above their 115 MW goal, and 581 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of energy reduction. These energy savings correspond to a reduction of 882,519 pounds of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions per year.

    In the corporate sector, Interface Inc., the world's largest carpet manufacturer, reduced their energy use 45% between 1996 and 2007, and currently meets 27% of their demand with renewable power. 3M, manufacturer of Scotch tape and thousands of other products, improved their energy efficiency by 12% in just two years, from 2005 – 2007. Dow Chemical has improved their energy efficiency by 24% since 1994, and saved an estimated $7 billion doing it.

    Ouch! These climate-friendly strategies are just killing us, aren't they? Oh, wait a minute, that would be Harper's head-in-the-sand, business-as-usual approach that's killing us.

    • This is a logically fallacious argument. You point to examples where adjustments were low in cost, and then assume that the general cost of reducing emissions is low. If the transition to lower emissions was virtually painless then why haven't most companies done so already? Why haven't most consumers?

      The reality is that there are some sectors of the economy where emission reductions are cheap, and some where they are not. The question is one of tradeoffs, not the bifurcated one you propose. At what point is the economic cost of pollution abatement too high?

      • Low in cost… interesting. What makes you say that? I'd say it was simply a matter of forward-thinking individuals and corporations making choices and seeing the results.

        Why haven't more companies and consumers made the change? Habit. Unwillingness to change daily practices. Inability to cough up capital costs for dramatically more efficient pumps, or delivery trucks, or refrigerators. These choices become a whole lot easier once we put a price on carbon. There is a right way and a wrong way to do that, however.

        You may have noticed that both our PM and Environment Minister have repeatedly and publicly stated they will join Canada into a North American cap and trade scheme. And this is the wrong way.

  29. Does anyone really care what these third world kleptocrats think?

    They are third rate in most every respect. and without foreign aid from countries like Canada they wouldn't even have the forum to criticize others.

    Let them get their own houses in order, at least to some sort of acceptable level, and then we might ask them for whatever opinions they might possibly have.

  30. Let's all give a big round of applause to the environmentalists in Copenhagen, playing the role of Gandalf in this battle.

    “The rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor nor of any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part I shall not wholly fail if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair and bear fruit and flower again in the days to come. For I too am a steward, did you not know?”

    Gandalf speaking to Denethor the Steward of Gondor, in the chapter Minas Tirith; "The Return of the King"

    • So does that mean we can throw them into a really large pit?

  31. How easily you confuse the UN Racketeers , third world poo bahs ,left wing moon bats and their assorted flack with everyone. The dictators of Africa and Asia don't need more contributions to their Swiss bank accounts from working people in the West and Mr. Harper is absolutely right to refuse to give it to them.Nor does the West have any obligation to turn its economies into a stoe aged model.This would be true even if global warming were not a fiction

  32. And from the end of the Business Case for Protecting Climate video… Hunter Lovins says, “If you go back and read Adam Smith, you see that all markets were intended to do was to allocate resources efficiently in the short term. Markets make a lousy religion, and they do a lousy job of taking care of grandchildren.”

  33. Canada we are proud of you – from oz.
    Sadly our government is right into this nonsense so it is good to see there are sensible governments around.

  34. The only argument against the reduction of our carbon emissions and sustainable life (yes, sustainable, meaning that if the earth is heating, we will drown!) is that of a world-wide conspiracy to steal tax dollars and distribute it to the third world under a socialist backdrop.

    Perhaps we should all take the oil out of our eyes and have a look at what life really means.

  35. Environment Minister Jim Prentice says Canada has realistic goals. Well, I and millions of Canadians say his goals are actually pretty timid. Instead, he should set BHAGs; Big Hairy Audacious Goals. Like ST Micro-electronics, setting a goal of reaching zero net CO2 emissions by 2010, with no idea how to reach it. Their commitment to this goal and willingness to innovate, however, has paid off. They've seen a 40-fold increase in production since 1990, and gone from 12th largest chipmaker in the world to being the 6th. So they've decided their 2010 goals weren't high enough and set new ones; to supply 15% of their power demand with renewables and 55% with cogeneration.

    Or like Toyota, wanting to build a car that can cross the US on a tank of gas. Do they know how to do it? Not yet, but they've set themselves on the road, and they're out ahead of Ford, and MILES ahead of GM.

    • Put more simply: You'll never reach the goals you don't set.

    • I'm with you! Let's get on with it. The world is moving to green technologies. How far do we want to go down this dead-end road that is the tarsands? All the other major players are setting goals much higher than ours. How far behind will we be, if we do not also aggressively pursue the new economic opportunities?

    • If I follow your examples it looks like the private sector is solving the problem – and without any government leadership. So, problem solved. Yay capitalism.

      • Ignoring that there are long term costs to fossil fuels is, in fact, wilful blindness on the part of society and a neglect of leadership on the part of government.

  36. Speaking of Mr. Prentice, he happens to be my MP. And I'm going to head over to his Calgary office now, as I've done for one hour in each of the past 8 weeks, to stand on the sidewalk with two signs saying, "Jim Prentice does not speak for ME, either as my MP or as Environment Minister", and "STOP pointing fingers, and LEAD on climate change."

    The pointing fingers part comes from my years of frustration hearing him (as my MP) as well as Stephen Harper, John Baird, and Rona Ambrose place the blame for climate change at the feet of the Liberals, of China, and of the US. And they have the nerve to do so, after their denial of the science of climate change and stonewalling any attempt at action, during their years in opposition to the Chretien government.

    • I got an idea! Why don't you move to Uganda. Denial of the science of climate change…hello, where have you been for the last 3 weeks? It's been pretty much exposed that there was/is no "science" to climate change. Surely you must be a displaced dipper from the center of the universe Taranta……moron

      • Hi Smok,

        Keep the insults for the grade school playground.

        I believe you're referring to the hacked emails; the furor over which forgets to mention consilience, which climate science is full of; the same conclusions are arrived at by multiple studies done by different people and in varying disciplines. While the jury may still be out in terms of 100% certainty on AGW, there is ample evidence that timely action now is CHEAP insurance against calamity later.

        One doesn't need tree rings to make a hockey stick; bore holes, corals, stalagmites for caves. Data from NASA, NOAH, and the Japan Meteorological Association reach similar conclusions. Consilience.
        2006 National Academy of Science affirmed the hockey stick as “essentially accurate.” “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph”. Google it.

        I'll bet you liked the quote, "it's a travesty that we can't… " but you may not have read along a little farther where he said, “the observing system we have is inadequate for tracking energy flow through the climate system,” Dr. Kevin Trenberth

        The Economist Magazine wrote: “To take this as evidence that Dr. Trenberth questions global warming seems foolish. He does not mean that a comparitive lack of warming over the past decade shows greenhouse warming has stopped. He knows the climate has natural ups and downs imposed on such trends, and that cold snaps happen. He is expressing frustration that the monitoring needed to understand how these variations work is not as good as it could be.”

    • Lets hope that you will stand there with your sign until whatever you have between your ears freezes solid. Denial of science of climate change, which science? That was invented by Al Gore to line his pockets or that of the settled scientists that are waiting for fat research grants to keep them employed until retirement when the settled science will be found out to be the a galactic fraud the largest that was ever perpetrated on this planet.

      • Consilience. see my reply to Smok-n-Fatty.

        • See the comment of Rob and my reply to his comment. 30 years ago the headlines were full of Global cooling panic. The flavour of today it is Global warming. The climate has changed in the past, is changing now and will change in the future. What really changed now is that crooks and charlatans masquerading as scientist for financial gain and politician with a leftist social change agenda jumped on the climate change bandwagon claiming that they have a snake oil remedy to stop the climate change in its tracks. They have the full support of world wide leftist media that is trying to manipulate the world economy by scare tactic and falsehood. Their aim is to destroy the western economy by punitive shake down and replacing it by Orwellian world order of global government

          • Hi Balabu,

            I suspect you and I may share an intense dislike of the cap and trade system, as favored by Mr. Harper and Mr. Prentice, which would make a lot of money for their friends on Bay Street and Wall Street.

            Annie Leonard, star of The Story of Stuff, in The Story of Cap and Trade

            And here's a husband and wife team of lawyers, with over 4 decades combined experience at the EPA, warning Americans about the cap and trade:

          • Yes I hate cap and trade (crap and cheat) which I view equals to the Indulgences that the Catholic Church used to sell for redeeming sins so people can keep on sinning which brought about the reformation of Martin Luther. Cap and trade will bring about fraud and bureaucracy and will do zilch for the environment. . I am all for alternative energy and reduction in use of fossil fuel. However I believe that the market forces will bring this about with little bit of nudging from the government by way of taxation. Obviously the whole story of CO2 and man made global climate change is a massive fraud. As to Harper me think that he also sees the Carbon /Global heating story as fraud. But as a politician he is going reluctantly along until it will be proven for everyone to see the fraud that it really is. In mean time he tries to minimize the damage that this scam does to Canada

          • Hi Balabu,

            You and I are not alone in wanting that "little bit of nudging from the government by way of taxation." I think British Columbia nailed it with a small revenue-neutral carbon tax, with scheduled increases over a few years. Citizens and businesses can all plan for the future and adapt when the economics are predictable.
            Back here in Alberta, Ipsos Reid Public Affairs released a survey in March '09 which asked the question, "In the past, the Alberta Government has provided companies with subsidies for oil and gas development that helped created industry and jobs. Would you prefer that the Alberta Government provide subsidies to oil and gas, or would you prefer that the Alberta Government provide subsidies for the development of renewable and clean energy options?”
            11% wanted money going to oil and gas, but support for the renewables was at 78%.

          • Subsidies? No way. That is the worst possible medicine worse than the illness. Subsidies distort the economy, lead to waste, bureaucracy, corruption. I have seen subsidized bread fed to livestock because it was cheaper than the grain. Increasing taxes on fuel will reduce use of fuel and lead to conservation and more efficient use of fuel and will encourage ECONOMIC alternatives. The emphasise is on economic. Subsidies will encourage wasteful non economic alternatives that may do more harm than good.

          • Hi Balabu,

            You may have noticed that the survey asked the question about subsidies in reference to the previous subsidies already made to fossil fuels; it hasn't ever been a level playing field.

            And it still isn't. The 2009 Budget for Canada's Economic Action Plan gives $351 million to Canada's nuclear industry and $850 million to carbon capture and storage, but the 360 page document never once mentions the word "renewable". Take a look.

            But personally, I prefer the feed in tariff, or FIT. Parliamentarian Hermann Scheer says the surcharge on the average German consumer's power bill has been 24 euros (about $38) a year. "It is the most successful new-job creation program we've ever had, and the most cost-effective job creation program," he said. "The most effective climate-protection program – it is cheaper than any emission-trading concept."

          • Roger
            I have seen today's Globe and Mail alarmist headline that the government wants to sell AECL Canada's Engineering “Jewel”. I have first hand knowledge of this crap. I don't want to go in too much detail because this should be a subject for a book. Current AECL is a taxpayer's money sucking organization that that masquerades as an engineering company. Just remember the fiasco of the MAPLE reactor that was supposed to replace the 50 years old research reactor that produced medical isotopes. After 10 years behind scheduled delivery and Hundred millions of taxpayers dollars over budget it had to be scrapped. As to the CANDU no one in the world wants it, maybe the Romanians if they get it for free, because it is technologically inferior design. The whole concept of CANDU is a politically correct design because Canada did not want to use enriched uranium. The fact that it's spent fuel contains plutonium that India and Pakistan extracted and produced nuclear bomb was overlooked. To cut it short 351 M taxpayer's dollars for nuclear industry is money that goes down straight to the toilet.
            Continued next

          • As $850 million for Carbon Capture. Another hare brained idea. Other than use of CO2 for enhanced oil flow from partially depleted oil wells capturing CO2 and sequestering it is an accident waiting to happen. Any engineer that is worth its salt and basic knowledge of the thermodynamic properties of compressed CO2 can make calculation on back of an envelope of the cost involved in compressing and storing CO2. We are not taking about CO2 in a fire extinguisher. We are talking of many 100 thousands tons of CO2 per year maybe million tons per year.
            If this Canada Economic Action plan it is pathetic. But I am not blaming the Conservative government for that. AECL and the Carbon capture is the brainchild and pet project of the Liberals. In order to survive as a minority government that is the tribute that they have to pay no matter how much they despise it.

          • I'm running out of time, as tonight is my first night back at my 10 hour night shifts and I need to get ready soon. I appreciate the insult-less discussion with you, however, (sometimes rare on these boards) and wanted to briefly respond.
            If only the $850 million were the end of it, but that was only the federal money. My own Provincial Government has sunk another $2 billion into this questionable technology.
            And I mentioned my fondness for the FITs, as set up in Ontario. I learned today at Calgary's Alternative Energy Meetup Group that Gary Holden, the CEO of Enmax Power, believes that solar could compete very nicely if we simply had time-of-day pricing, passing on to consumers the higher daytime costs that utilities themselves must pay for power. This would shift some power loads to the much cheaper nighttime when, conveniently, the sun doesn't shine.
            Have a good night.

          • I believe that the 2B that your provincial government pays for the Carbon capture scam is made under duress. With all the Enviro crooks ganging on Alberta's main economic engine it is like being held up by highway men demanding ransom to let you go. As to Alternative energy I am reiterating my position that its time will come when the economy will justify it. Alternative energy will include Nuclear as well. This will come in spite the anti nuclear indoctrination oi young children by the Hollywood created TV cartoon Simpson.

          • Hi Balabu,

            You may have noticed that the survey asked the question about subsidies in reference to the previous subsidies already made to fossil fuels; it hasn't ever been a level playing field.

            And it still isn't. The 2009 Budget for Canada's Economic Action Plan gives $351 million to Canada's nuclear industry and $850 million to carbon capture and storage, but the 360 page document never once mentions the word "renewable". Take a look.

            But personally, I prefer the feed in tariff, or FIT. Parliamentarian Hermann Scheer says the surcharge on the average German consumer's power bill has been 24 euros (about $38) a year. "It is the most successful new-job creation program we've ever had, and the most cost-effective job creation program," he said. "The most effective climate-protection program – it is cheaper than any emission-trading concept."

    • As you are standing outside freezing in record low temperatures, I am sure one thought must be running through your mind. Why couldn't Harper have appointed an environment minister from BC?

      • Yesterday wasn't bad actually; not lower than -12, I would say.

  37. I am just loving it! Canada is truly in a class on it's own in world leadership, and I mean it in the best possible terms.

    No deal at Copenhagen, no deal anywhere! Give em the finger, Harper and Prentice!

    • Give em 2 fingers, one from each hand!

  38. "Environment Minister Jim Prentice says Canada has realistic goals. Well, I and millions of Canadians say his goals are actually pretty timid"

    Perhaps Jim Prentice should announce that Canada has a goal that will cut 100% of all emissions by next October.

    Would that satisfy you, RogerG?

    • Hi Grant,

      Your black and white response doesn't add much to the discussion but hey! thanks for showing up!

  39. Dare we need to know more wrt our PM's environmental principles?

    It is quite obvious the children and others of this world can read and know even more about the truth about Canada's self appointed King.

    April 13, 2006: Three months after his election, Harper quietly cancelled 15 federal programs meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This announcement was made on a Thursday afternoon before the Easter long weekend, presumably in an effort to sweep this important policy shift under the carpet.

    The axed programs included the "One Tonne Challenge" as well as the Energuide program, which provided incentives to retrofit 300,000 Canadian homes since the late 1990s — saving on average 30 per cent in energy use. Also cut were 40 public information offices across the country and several scientific and research programs on climate change.

    These cuts were made in spite of the fact that a recent Treasury Board review had determined the majority of these programs were cost effective.

    • These programs did not contribute a gramme to energy saving or CO2 reduction. All what they did is feeding parasitic activists masquerading as consultants and scientists. No wonder that they are hopping mad that the trough from which they were feeding was taken away from them.

  40. It is a sad, backward mentality that the Harper Gov't perpetuates when they say cutting greenhouse gas emissions will destroy our economy. There's a lot of money and jobs that can be produced, as well as money saved, when reducing GHG emissions.

    Simple example: A lot of emissions come from Coal plants, so how can we increase our efficiency and reduce energy use? Well, lets retrofit existing public buildings to use less energy. This would require technology that we can start producing IN Canada. We can retrain the thousands of people that lost their manufacturing jobs, produce these new green manufacturing jobs, save tax money from lower utility costs, lower emissions, and boost our economy with new products that we can sell and export. These same technologies can be applied to the private sector as well.

    Instead of subsidizing the tar sands, apply the same "model" above and invest in green energy. The tar sands emit most of the emissions anyways, so if we could stop its growth and reduce it, we kill two birds with one stone.

    Reducing emissions will also save tens of millions in health costs for Canada from treating smog related diseases as well as reduce Cancer levels (inhaling these emissions is just as bad as smoking those cigarettes).

    • If people will make money off of it, the government doesn't have to force people to do it. That's just common sense. You need to get your facts straight on what things are eco friendly AND cost effective and what is being asked of our government. People with a lot of money want more money if it's "green" or not, you're just giving in to stereotypes.

      • Well obviously, not all businesses will benefit. Oil companies which make money polluting the air and water will stand to lose money from this. But from their own mouths, Oil companies want a price on carbon so that they can plan their future business operations.

        People WILL make money off of it green technology. It is no stereotype that many European nations like Germany and Denmark have reduced their emissions and increased their economy by 40% since 1990.

        You're correct, many people with money want more money if it's "green" or not. Thus, to curb that mentality, if you make it more expensive to pollute, you effectively change their behavior so that they make money while polluting less. That's just common sense. As the government, it can set consequence and benefits for making money a certain way.

        The Government is being asked to Reduce their GHG emissions. It is up to our government to come up with ways to do it. Being eco friendly AND cost effective can very well go hand in hand. It is also common sense that if you use less energy, you electric bill is lower. If you use less gas, your vehicle maintenance bill is lower. You would be reducing your cost (ie. be cost effective), and reduce emissions (ie. be eco friendly).

      • Increasing the cost of energy will be a drag on the economy?? Absurd!

        I actually saw a clip of Al Gore explaining why the economy will benefit: "because it's progress" he said in conclusion. I do agree that lives could be saved, the question to me is whether that's comparable to the lives lost because of less economic wealth. I saw an interesting clip at that projected the result of having India's recent growth start a few decades earlier and you would have hundreds of millions of lives saved.

      • People can't make money off of it so long as the companies aren't prohibited from externalizing true costs.

        Imagine if the pork industry wasn't subject to health codes.. say they could perform their own inspections or something and save on the costs. Now imagine trying to start up a beef packing plant in the same region. You wouldn't be able to successfully do it. Does this mean that people don't like beef? No.. it means that unless there's a level playing field, you can't rely on competition to produce the best winner.

        There is no level playing field in sustainability.. because those trying to be sustainable or make sustainable products, have to do so in an environment where there's no penalty for *not* being sustainable.

      • It's funny to hear people talk about the "big" oil industry.
        It's going to pale in comparison to the big Green industry.
        Trillions to be traded in carbon credits and derivatives.
        Another ponzi scheme,waiting to steal your dollars.
        There's already been $7 billion or more in a carbon trading scam in Europe,as reported by BBC.
        This isn't about the environment.
        It's about a Global Governance waiting to pilfer money from the wealthy Nations.
        Why should we trust the U.N with our money?
        Doesn't anyone recall their involvement in the "food for oil" scandal?

  41. Great comments everyone, let's just roll up the ramp and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. This argument comes down to getting elected. Harper's power base and the tar sands are in the same location. Scrap extracting oil from the tar sands could mean that the cow herders might turf him out of office. He is playing regional politics to the detriment of Canada and the world's future. He is short sighted and has a group of people around him without a voice. Time for Canadians to start living up to their legacy

    • Same old claptrap from the leftly liberal Harper haters who think it is their devine right to run Canada forever. Harper elected more members from almost every province, region and territory than anyone else. If people were sooo on board with "saving the world" they would have elected the nutty professor(Dion) in a landslide, and he and Lizzie May would be attending the love-in in Copenfraud, arm in arm, signing away Canada. Instead, after the failed coup, he disappeared(guess the "environment" was that important after all) and Lizzie May is over there, outside looking in, elbowing her way to the front of the buffet line, because that's about all see can accomplish there. Have a nice day.

    • Are you anywhere near Mayor Miller.He was bleating about polluting, this from a mayor, whose very idea of recycling, is to send it to another country.Unless there is a strike, in which case everyone summer is pretty toxic.

    • The world wants our oil and are willing to pay top dollar for it. It's one of the reasons we are prosperous.

      Anne, you may want to live in the poor house. You're in the distinct minority. Most of us are just scraping by as it is.

    • So you want to ruin the main industry of one region of Canada, but its Harper who is playing regional politics. Gotcha. Why can't Harper be a great unifier of regions like Trudeau was.

  42. I'm very surprised that the UN isn't more concerned about the worlds population. When more wealthy countries have no more aid to give (and yes, the UN wants aid) how is this progress
    To those ashamed to be Canadain, I agree with you, I'm ashamed your Canadian also

  43. The world hates Canada ! Boo Hoo – does MacLeans need a cookie and a hankie ?
    Grow a set , ya eunichs ! Who the hell cares what a bunch of sycophantic eco-posers and Eurotrash think ?
    If their scientists won't release their data for proper peer review to determine man's percentile involvement , then they don't deserve our time, our money or even the steam off our urine. The world is being sold a scam and until proven otherwise, we don't owe anyone a thing !

    • Steam of the urine? Is this an alternative energy source? Can you drive a turbine with it?

  44. They that hide the decline,

    Can go'n kiss my behind.

  45. Canada The Harper Gov: is it,s worst Enemy, to Itself. In the past few months The Canada Tink Tank made statements in the Digital Jounal that , the Canada,s First Nations People are a Terrorist Threat To the Alberta Tar Sands, for the Paranoia of loosing The Bids to Sell Its Dirty Oil TO: The USA /China/ & other Developing Countries along with Our Natural Resources,in Mining/ETC, which I Refer to as "Blood OIL" The Indiginious People have been suffering all over the World,Living in poverty,while their Land & It,s Resources has been sold OFF to other Countries & in the Meantime the Country is Involved in Mining & other Mineral Resources in south America and so on. Our First Nations are Dying of Cancers in the Tar Sands and their has been World Wide recommendations To close down the Tar Sands ,but the Harper Gov: continues to Attack First Nations from under neath the Earth they walk on,by sweeping the problems under the Rug, I really don,t know what Harpers Gov: ,s Intentions are for the Aboriginals of this Country,one week HIs Gov: Calls us Terrorist/ the Next week they say don,t recognize that Genocide happened to our People 100/ 150 years Ago/. This Sort of Behavoir does not go well in this Country ,the world is Watching/Reading /Listening ,Especially now with all the scientist / Doctors/Specialist /against the Tar Sands. Shameful way & very Childish way To Act,it,s more than a disgrace to be noticed as been a part of a such polluter to our Country & our water along with the people.

  46. The poor south continues to fund the rich northern way of life and nothing will change until a major ecological, political and economic disaster forces a new system on us. The current one is clear unsustainable but we bring our elastics and glue and try our best. Where is Brian Mulroney when you need his steely leadership?

  47. We can't forget that people control the economy. If people decide that there is climate change (the truth of the matter is beside the point) and demand green technologies, whoever produces these technologies will benefit – whoever refuses to adapt to the demands of the market, what people want, will be left behind with a lot of expensive catching up to do. It's smart to stay ahead of the curve, look for new opportunities. Of course it's important to protect our economy, that's why we need to keep changing.

  48. Wrong headline. Canadian don't give a s**t about a bunch of loser countries trying to create a climate crisis so they can increase taxes and get control over every facet of individual's lives. That's the real story, the one the MSM won't print.

  49. Who cares what the international elitist mob and dictators think of us. Just check the immigration application numbers and you know how popular we are. And the Canada-bashers won't change that any time soon.

  50. Well said!

  51. PM harper and Mr. Prentice do not give into this scam. Paying off banana republics in order to pollute will do nothing to reduce Co2 and will only make our lives more difficult. Of course the armpit countries in Africa and Asia are all over this deal-they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Walk out of this hysteria driven and narrow minded conference and concentrate on developing cleaner energy, more efficient cars, homes etc. here at home. Oh and I might add the science IS NOT settled people but leaving less of a footprint on our environment is always a no-brainer.

  52. Oh, they talked to a specialist from David Suzuki`s Foundation… it seems to me that this is just domestic politics played in an international arena.
    This meeting at Copenhagen is just leftwingers trying to build a global government.
    Blaming Canada now… ridiculous. Leftwingers love manipulate the masses with sweet words on the mouth and bad, bad intentions hidden in their hearts.

    • I don't think either lefties or righties have bad intentions at all. In fact I'd say most of the time the left is so convinced their intentions are good they end up skipping out on thinking about whether their version of things is right and whether their answers for things actually work out. I just watched a really interesting interview of a woman from Zambia talking about how the average African economic level has actually declined since aid programs were started. (interview) A trillion dollars later she's saying that it actually is hurting African economies. And the response of Bono and Bob Geldof's charity organization has been to call ahead of her media engagements and sending letters to NGOs in Africa to tell people she's a bad person with bad intentions. Kind of like the treatment Canada's getting.

      They seem to figure only one side can have good intentions and that's them.

      • I listened to the Interview and reminds me of my motto about life, politics, economy and what have you and what many people in particular leftist hate:
        Bono and Geldoff have good intentions and they bring hell and misery to Africa

  53. No deal in Copenhagen would surely require some trees to be planted to compensate for all the CO2 created flying in all those environmental groups…

    Something needs to be agreed, with or without Canada, if they want to stay out / do not want to commit to anything, let them be, do not waste time.

    On climate change: who cares if it can or cannot be proven that we / humans have an effect. If we take decide & take action and pollute less, it will ALWAYS lead to a better world. DO NOT STALL

    • Regardless of what you think of carbon offsets, the emissions from this summit have already been offset by the replacement of brick kilns in Bangladesh with more efficient models. It’d be nice if people didn’t proceed from a position of ignorance.

    • Yeah, lets just pay someone to plant trees, instead of letting the trees grow back on their own for free, like they do in all clearcuts.

  54. The tools that ENABLED us to lead a prosperous existence.

    Have you noticed that we now number almost 7 billion? Have you noticed that what was for most of the millenia of our human history a ridiculous and laughable idea is now actually happening, that we are changing the planet? Have you noticed that every natural life-giving system is in decline?

    The rest of the world is, increasingly, no longer willing to allow us to do business in their countries, using their resources and cheap labour while sucking out all the profits.

    Sorry, hoser, the world is changing and so must we.

  55. As someone approaching age 60, I'd like to apologize to everyone under about age 30, who are destined to suffer during their lives climate-change induced mass migrations, famines, wars, upheavals, etc.

    Really, I'm quite sorry out that whole thing, and embarrassed to be a member of the generation that could see what was happening, but could not and would not act to avoid the nasty outcomes that now await us.

    Did I say "us"? By "us", of course, I mean you folks under about age 30. The world you inherit isn't going to be a happy place.

    • I am approaching 77 and yes I blame my and your generation for the misery, mass migrations, and upheavals that the world is about to experience. But what I blame my generation is the "do goodness" syndrome, pouring trillions of Dollars on feel good politics encouraging the future generations all over the world to depend on aid an welfare instead of encouraging them to stand on their feet. Yes the world that the young folks inherit isn't going to be a happy place.

      • You think that the world is not a happy place? I love life, I love being a Canadian, I love being free! The 60+ set hasn't done anything to screw up the world, it is what we are doing now that could screw up the world. Let us, the under 30 set, enjoy the same opportunities and freedoms that those who paved the way for us enjoyed. It is up to all ages to ensure that freedom and equality continue to exist with out the David Suzuki's and Al Gores telling us how terrible we are. I say thanks to all those who built this wonderfull country for me to raise my own family!

  56. A leading computer programmer is interviewed by the british press (BBC), on the computer coding for the AGW modelling.

    It's brief, but startling video. In short, the model is a mess and inherently unreliable.

    Behold, the computer model that trillions are riding on:

  57. What are you talking about?

    What is the obsession with National Interests?
    What are national interests to me?
    I care about the safety of all people on the earth, not just our national interests. As an incredibly well developed nation it is undoubtedly our duty to pave the way for renewable and clean energy, and a sustainable lifestyle the earth will support. People like you are in all honesty deluded. You talk about problems in terms of their economic relevance, and in balance of our "national interests", but all that means is that you're too cowardly (and cheap) to openly admit that the way most people currently live in canada is unsustainable. The only option is too admit that what we are doing is wrong, and what we must do is clear. We need an ambitious climate change plan, and a sustained effort by all levels of society to improve our energy efficiency. In terms of copenhagen being a scam, I don't know and I don't care, what I do know is that our government is not being honest, their being cowardly, and so are you, it is clear what we have to do, as you admitted, but your too pussy to take the economic hit that being sustainable demands, your unwilling to admit that the earth gives you life and needs to be respected

  58. When for the sake of the world's health, most nations come to an understanding that certain standards need to be set and adhered-to, it's no time for a country like Canada to start back-pedaling and insisting on exemptions for itself (-to allow the country to continue to pollute the world's atmosphere, far beyond acceptable limits). National interests is NOT an excuse for poisoning the environment. To try to play with the statistical numbers, to try to "SPIN" the reality of the situation is shameful. If you really wanted to exercise National interests you should have developed alternative fuel sources, and not depended on Alberta dirty-oil. So many of those alternative fuels can be just as profitable but they require imagination – much more than a lazy, don't-change-it-if-it-ain't-broke" attitude, which Canada seems to be exercising at this moment.
    Wake up Canada, so that everyone can smell the roses, and not something else.
    Canada HAD a proud tradition of wholesome, peaceful and considerate interactions with the rest of the nations in the world. That's no longer the case.
    Shame on Steven Harper, and the insensitive members of his government. To those in the extreme minority who are advocating social and global responsibility, I wish you well.

  59. Before committing Canada to any treaty, and forwarding money to UN or any other organization Canadian Government should set up a royal commission of inquiry headed by 3 judges to call witnesses to review the whole global warming/cooling issue. Review the evidence of the effect of humans on the climate, what if anything needs or can be done about it. The commission of inquiry should be able call expert witnesses from all over the world and have them cross examined under oath. Out of pocket expenses of the witnesses should reimbursed. If expert witnesses refuse to show up their publications should be analyzed by other experts. Spending 100 million dollars on such an inquiry will be well worthwhile instead wasting billions of dollars based on false assumptions of questionable science.

  60. simply said….it seems the world does not hate canada but hates the people representing canada

  61. Who cares? The various losers bashing Canada are probably driving around with Canadian-derived petrol in their tanks. I'm quite proud that the world finally notices us for something other than being sickeningly compliant and "nice". A belligerent, abrasive, in-your-face Canada is more in line with our traditional role on the world stage anyway. Why we abandoned that after WWII is anyone's guess. What I most enjoy is the hand-wringing of the progressive pants-pi$$ers as they watch our precious "international reputation" disintegrate. How I do love to see them suffer. Canada's back, and it sure feels good.

  62. this is the kind of reporting you expect from a Ontario magazine that is in bed with the Liberals, one word for climate change HOAX

  63. Keep up the good work Mr. Prentice. You're there to represent Canadians not the UN or the NGO's. Let's come up with a Canadian solution "at home, rather than some global forum".

  64. The emphasis placed on GHG’s seems to sidetrack less divisive and more important environmental issues like the decline of old-growth and rain-forests, the pollution of soil and ground water, etc. So, the brilliant solution is that Canada should give tank-loads of money to other nations to pay for its contribution of a fraction of a part per million of nano-scale particles to the high atmosphere? That sounds like a great idea to me. Not. What if Canadians fart less on average than other nations – did they include that into their super-computer equations? Why not make place our efforts instead into throwing out and buying less crap, having less babies, and other such tangible things?

  65. Quebec is rightly justified that it shouldn't pay for Alberta's tar sands pollution. Then again, Quebec flooded a lot of land to create clean hydro-electricity.

    • OK Quebec should return all the equalization payment that it received from Alberta

    • Quebec socail programs are paid for with Alberta "dirty oil money." Hey if the shoe was on the other foot would you still say the same thing?

  66. You know i find it very disapointing how every on is pointing fingers at us Canadians ( Damn proud to be one) when the majority of are emmissions comes from the oil sands and if we just said f*ck you to the rest of the world and kept it for ourselves we'd only need like 20% of what were pulling out of the ground cutting the emmissions by 80% and another thing to any critizing americans out there keep in mind that Canada is the one who installed hundreds if not thousands of windmills to power your f*cking country helping you guys go green

    • Wrong, the majority of the emissions comes from cars and trucks. Hey lets go back to horses and oxen but they need to be genetically modified not to fart greenhouse gases.

      • Hey now, we can't go genetically modifing these thing… Europe does not want our genetically modified canola, it would not want us to have genetically modified horses.

  67. We should simply pay for what oil & coal really cost. Tax carbon, reduce income tax, give tax breaks to green technology companies… consumers can then build demand for greener products with their larger retained earnings. A simple solution.

  68. Who cares about condemnation by the parasitic NGO and self serving activists or by the Tin hat cleptocrats with their hands stretched out to grab funds to deposit into their numbered bank accounts. Their contribution to the well being of teh world is same as the contribution of flees for the well being of a dog.

  69. Art does not reproduce what can be seen, it makes things visible. (Paul Klee)

    Everybody knows that the dice are loaded, everybody rolls with their fingers crossed, Everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost.
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed, the poor stay poor the rich get rich, that's how it goes. Everybody knows. Everybody knows that the boat is leaking, everybody knows the captain lied. Everybody's got this broken feeling, like their father or their dog just died.
    Everybody's talking to their pockets, everybody wants a box of chocolates and a long stemmed rose. Everybody knows

    Everybody knows that its now or never, everybody knows that its me or you. And everybody knows that you live forever when you've done a line or two. Everybody knows the deal is rotten, old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton for your ribbons and bows. And everybody knows.
    Everybody knows that the plague is coming. Everybody knows that it's moving fast. Everybody knows that the naked man and woman – just a shining artifact of the past. Everybody knows the scene is dead, but there's gonna be a meter on your bed that will disclose. What everybody knows. (Leonard Cohen)

  70. No one hates Canada. This is a coordinated tactic of the Left and their lapdogs in the media. They don't like the democratically elected leader of Canada because he comes from the wrong side. Why is the US no longer at the top of the hate list? Because there is a Leftist in charge. Simple as that. Canada will be badgered, mocked and isolated until it bows down to the Leftist elite and puts one of their own back in power.

  71. Canadians are successful and wealthy. You must expect some dislike from elites abroad who do not give their people votes, rights, or economic opportunity and fear that their own peoples will look at Canadians and throw their masters out on their bums.

    Does anyone actually believe that Third World thugocracies actually give a tinker's dam about the environment? They want the cash.

  72. I've heard it stated that meat production operations may be responsible for up to one-fifth of GHG worldwide, producing methane and nitrous oxide emissions which are far more harmful than carbon dioxide. Why then, is nobody sounding the horn on the U.S., whose meat consumption is roughly twice the developed world average? Seems to me it's not just a question of oil sands and "mean machines". We all need to be more responsible and consider the impact of our collective lifestyle on the environment.

  73. I have an idea…kick Alberta and our dirty, evil tar sands out of Canada. Then Canada can distance itself from the filthy monies that come out of it and can appeal for financial support from all the countries that you feel the need to answer to. We'll do our own thing and stop supporting the WHOLE damn country. Wake up or shut up!

    • If Alberta is kicked out I move over there. I like the Rockies and skiing and don't eat frogs.

  74. "How did a country with two per cent of the world's emissions turn global villain? "

    We let a villain lead government.

  75. Simple Solution:

    We would need a Trudeau-esque leader to make the foolowing speech:

    As Prime Minister of Canada I hereby immediately declare Martial Law in Canada. I assume Powers Plenipotentiary, as the result of an Inter-National, National, and Inter-Provincial Emergency. The following Orders in Council are Issued, and Effective Immediately:

    1) Canada shall no longer export any kind of Natural Resource to the World outside of Canada. No Minerals, Oil, Natural Gas, Hydro, or foodstuffs. We realize some other economies may feel some slight inconveniences.

    2) Canada shall immediately review all imports of anything, and they shall be placed either on an allow or do not allow list…. Most will no longer be allowed. I realize that some nations which export to canada may feel a slight economic downturn as a result.

    3) All foreign companies and firms and agencies and agents operating in this land are herein Nationalized 100%. Their Directors, CEO’s, Presidents and Managers are under Martial Law, and Orders for any operations will be issued via the PMO.

    4) All vacation travel out of Canada is pre-empted and cancelled. All foreign air and train carriers are therefore required to abandon their assets and personell, effective immediately. Needless to say, any of ther route permissions are immediately void.

    5) Canada is resigning immediately from Nato, Seato, UN, and all other international organizations.

    6) We are recalling all ambassadors for consultation.

    7) All Canadian Troops, Advisors, Citizens, Foreign Aid Workers, etc are given a 2 week time period to return home immediately, and permanently.

    8) All Canadian Foreign Investments are to be repatriated within 30 days.

    9) All Canadian foreign debt of any kind is immediately considered void.

    The overuse of Natural Resources, Global Warming, and the possibility of any Terrorists using canada for any purpose anywhere have thus effectively been solved.

    Thank you.

    I think the rest of the world would immediately settle down….

    Why? The rest of the world would go into a depression that would make the Great Depression look like the Roaring Twenties. With such a reduction in the use of any form of resources, and the resulting reduction in population…. The planetary ecology would be reset for about 100,000 years….

    I realize that there might be some inconveniences. After giving the speech, the Prime Minister could wait a day or so, and say “Psyche!”. he could then ask what is left of the rest of the world: “So, have you come to your senses?”

  76. I don't care what rich Eurotrash thinks. They don't have to work for a living and neither do all the bureaucrats in all the various levels of government. The fact is there is a world wide demand for oil so we would be foolish to eliminate all the jobs and revenue that oil creates to satisfy a bunch of loonies that perpetuate the AGW lie so they can have a big party.

  77. Interestingly, nobody at Copenhagen mentioned how Canada has the largest area of Boreal Forest that a lot of other countries would have chopped down by now and set up their Wal-Marts (UK version of course) :D

  78. I hope Canada doesn't cave to peer pressure at Copenhagen. I'm a climate catastrophe skeptic (proud of it) and I want my government to continue representing my wishes.

  79. It is global warming scam , in combination with the corruption at the UN. It is long article from the UK's Telegraph, but I urge all of you to read it. It is all about the money. This is an example of some good investigative reporting by a newspaper, unfortunately, we don't see it that often today
    This is about business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

  80. Moral judgment on environmental action aside, I am impressed by Canada's willingness to stand on its own here. We have, as a country and individually, always been so afraid of criticism by others, and I think it is high time that we stood up for ourselves, whatever the outcome.

  81. Very super information.

  82. Suddenly the world hates Canada? Don't think so. The rest of the world understands that we are stuck with a fundamentalist joke as a party who have high jacked this country and turned it into a redneck circus, hence damaging our reputation as an ecologically decent country. It's more like Harper, his cronies and those who voted for him who hate Canada. The rest of us are embarrassed and hoping for the best to see this social disease go away ASAP so we can retrieve our reputation as an environnement friendly country.

  83. In this matter I wish Canada's opponents the best of luck. They should keep in mind that the Vancouver Olympics provide an excellent opportunity to further embarass Harper and his tar sand backers but the environmental lobby has demonstrated great creativity lately. I think we may get some great entertainment out of vancouver that has nothing to do with sports.

    Important phone numbers,

  84. Nobody believed the consequenses of a Hitler was a threat to world stability until the panzers were overrunning France and no body will believe global warming until the first waves of eco refugees overrun the shoes of Hudsons bay.Twas ever thus.

  85. "Suddenly"? Does everyone in Canada have a very, very short memory.

    Read David Boyd's Unnatural Law (UBC Press, 2003), in which he recounts numerous cases of Canada being recognized as the obstacle to environmental protection, including previous Fossil awards…

  86. No government, good or bad will be as effective as the PEOPLE that they govern in making significant changes. An agreement is as good as the people who sign it.

    Ladies and gents, It's up to us. WE need to make responsible decisions. We need to take a good look at our youth and imagine the world we will leave for them. WE need to clean up our own little selfish worlds and the rest will take care of its self. We have many choices. Unfortunately, not enough of us make the right ones.

  87. photosynthesis – the process by which light from the sun serves as energy to produce sugar from carbon dioxide and water, oh ya those stupid things called trees,there cant be any left are there,no doubt there is a problem, just like they killed all the buffalo to kill the indians they want all the trees which will kill us. they never talk about stopping the destruction of the rain forest,the only thing keeping us all alive.

  88. No, the world doesn't hate Canada.
    I happen to be Official Spokesman of the world, and can tell you that Canada's great and so are its people.
    So there!

  89. Just find a bog next to a hill and charge your batteries with it. The earth itself acts as a natural battery.

  90. canada has been riding american coattails since the 1800s. canada is whats called a cling-on country; your only claim to fame is being neighbors with uncle sam. “canadian culture” is nothing more than a bastardization of american culture. y’all cant even copy US right. the only thing you had (maybe) going for you was your claim to being one of the top countries to live in because of quality of life & environment record. no, you dont even have that. you sold out to china a long long LONG time ago, in an attempt to be economically competitive with uncle sam, and now you’ve dug yourselves into a #$%-hole that the us is going to have to get you out of.

  91. Harper has given canada a very smug image. Yes the whole world is getting sick of it and him for that matter.