At the G8 meeting in July, Harper made a big deal of not taking sufficient action on the environment by demanding that China be bound by similar targets. China in other words was his scapegoat for doing nothing and eventually watering down the process.Even if everything that Harper said about China was true, it was still the wrong way to go in my opinion. We have to live up to our responsibilities to the planet and start now. Lead by example as they say.
But guess what? Harper and pals have been presenting a story about China that isn't accurate.
China has been painted as a bad boy in the fight against global warming, but it is quietly positioning itself to become a "low carbon dragon," says a new report.
"There's two sides to the China story," Steve Howard -- London-based CEO of the Climate Group, a not-for-profit group that tries to advance the low-carbon agenda -- told CTV.ca on Wednesday.
"It's got a massive energy efficiency and renewable program, and that much of the low-carbon technology ... of the 21st century is being researched, built and rolled out in China."
This is driven by strong domestic policies and export opportunities, which Howard called a good-news story for China and the world.
Imagine that. The technology needed going forward is being researched and built in China. Where's Canada on this front? Shouldn't we be leading the way?
... the Climate Group has found that China is emerging as a leader in several areas:
- It has the largest hydroelectric capacity and fifth largest wind power capacity in the world
- It ranked second in absolute dollar amount invested in renewable energy in 2007, spending US$12 billion to Germany's $14 billion
- It is a leading manufacturer of solar photovoltaic technology
- It will become the world's leading wind turbine exporter by 2009, and could become a leader in products such as solar water heaters, energy-efficient home appliances and rechargeable batteries
- It is implementing fuel efficiency standards for vehicles that are 40 per cent higher than those in the United States
Did the leaders at the G8 have these facts? It seems not, but why not? That seems a bit fishy doesn't it?
At the G8 meetings in July, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the developing world will have to join with the developed to achieve a 50 per cent cut in greenhouse gas levels by 2050. Harper said Canada can't be expected to hurt its economy by shouldering an overly large reduction burden relative to the developing nations such as China and India.
"You can't easily hide behind the China story," Howard said. Most countries, Canada included, are doing less than China in terms of per-capita GDP spending on renewable, low-carbon energy.
"At the G8, if the facts had been in front of the leaders, Prime Minister Harper would not have been able to make the statements that he made ... he'd have had to say 'no, China's actually doing rather a lot,'" he said.
No, I doubt he would have said that. Even with the information I'm sure Harper would have rationalised his position in some other way. Obviously, China still has much work to do, but the point is they are working on the issue.
So the question is, what's Harper's excuse going to be now?
49 comments:
So what do you suggest we do . . . since the globe has been cooling since 2000 . . . . and what do you suggest will replace oil next week?
Watch the footage from Bejing . . . our air is much cleaner, is it not!!! So lets talk about all the things we are doing right, like cars 98% cleaner than 40 years ago.
When China catches up with us . . . then we talk . . . until then anything we do will only kill jobs, raise taxes and put Canada at a disadvantage . . fact!!
No, it's fiction but it's not worth debating a closed mind.
''It will become the world's leading wind turbine exporter by 2009, and could become a leader in products such as solar water heaters, energy-efficient home appliances and rechargeable batteries''
So China will produce, NOT use alternate energy sources.
So China will INCREASE their ghg's due to the manufacturing of alternate energy sources, which they sell to other countries.
So how does that make China an evniro hero?
Actually, there is a lot to your story that could be debated, but you lost reader 'will' when you say:
'We have to live up to our responsibilities to the planet and start now. Lead by example as they say.'
Good gawd knb. Liberals totally failed on the enviro file, we all know it.
Just because they are poised to be the lead exporter doesn't mean they won't implement said technologies in their own country.
Yep, the Lib's didn't move as I had wished, until Dion came in as enviro. Minister. (18 months)
You guys killed his plan and have done nothing in almost 3 years. This inaction belongs to you guys now, you can't keep hiding behind the Lib's.
So yeah, it's time to lead by example.
knb
Don't you think those two make a cute couple?
lol, matchmaking for free @ Liberal Arts and Minds!
To oldschool who said "...When China catches up with us...then we talk".
You know what? China can say: "When we catch up with all the pollution that the developed countries have done to this planet for the past decades since the Industrial Revolution, then we talk".
If you are willing to do a little fact finding in the Internet, it is not hard to find information like "The U.S. is responsible for almost half of the increase in the world carbon dioxide in the past decade. The increase is greater than the increase in China, India, Africa and the whole of Latin America." - Andrew Kerr of the World Wide Fund for Nature. Even at the time of the Kyoto discussions, the U.S., with a little over 4 per cent of the world's population, was responsible for 35 per cent of the total historic emission of carbon dioxide - the princinpal driver of global warming in the post-industrial era. The average American was then emitting 7 times as much carbon dioxide as the average Chinese and 20 times as much as the average Indian.
So please stop scapegoating China.
What are China's per capita emissions compared to ours? Same for India? They're a small fraction of our own. Curious how we ignore that fact since it undermines our righteous fury over China.
If we're going to tackle GHG emissions in whatever time remains to achieve that goal the more advantaged are going to have to lead - that's us. We're going to have to lead by example and, having established that standard, then cajole or if need be coerce the emerging economies to follow suit. Somebody has to take the moral highground on this one and nobody is in a better position to do that than us.
Oldschool is an idiot and I think even he knows it.
Wilson also overlooks the fact that awareness of this problem, the one that Harpo calls the greatest threat to mankind, was negligible until just a few years ago. The popular will and the commensurate political will to deal with it didn't exist before then. It's convenient for Wilson's typical sophistry to leave this out.
China's per capita emissions . . . that is a dumb anaology!!!
The US uses 25% of fossil fuels . . . it also has 25% of the world's economic output . . . fact!!!
So, logic would dictate that if you reduce economic output, you will reduce consumption. Be my guest . . . that is the program going on now in Ontario. Stop the factories, shut down the highways, sit in your houses in the dark.
Do you think that will save the planet from the politically driven GW scare?
GW is nonsense, CO2 is not causing anything but plants to grow.
The banks in Europe are making BILLIONS SELLING CARBON CREDITS . . . at the expense of consumers, who pay inflated prices for everything.
"A greenhouse is simply a physical structure that traps hot air. Solar radiation initiates the heating sequence inside a greenhouse when photons in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, entering through glass or transparent plastic panels, are absorbed by surfaces of opaque objects. Reflected photons exit freely; neither they, nor their "heat," are trapped inside. Drivers who regularly park their mobile greenhouses in sunny locations exploit this principle by placing reflective white cardboard behind their windshields to expel some before they're absorbed.
ANd Mound . . . anyone who thinks that 30 odd million canooks can save the planet is mentally challenged!!!!
FACTS ON CO2 . . .
Although transparent to visible photons, greenhouse panels absorb weaker radiation in the infrared (IR) region of the spectrum. Solar IR photons can't enter. This fact requires spectroscopists to use exotic window materials such as polished rock salt in their IR pursuits. Visible radiation, not IR, energizes a greenhouse.
Advocates misuse the term "absorption" of photons by substances as being analogous to water sopped up by a sponge, unchanged, implying physical entrapment. Actually, it means that the photon smoothly transfers its radiant energy to kinetic form. Absorption is an energy transition, not a trap; photons don't occupy molecular cages. Similarly, emission is the reverse kinetic to radiant transfer.
An absorbed photon disappears as its discrete packet (quantum) of radiant energy dissipates into a diverse kinetic assortment of motion, vibrations or collisions involving atoms and molecules of the absorbing substance. Imagine one shot of your metabolic energy, through cue stick and cue ball, scattering a rack of balls on a pool table. These transfers obey the second law of thermodynamics, popularly stated as the spontaneous downhill flow from high to low energy, or hot to cold. Inside a greenhouse, visible photons define the hilltop from which this flow begins. IR photons, when emitted, are near the bottom of a typical greenhouse energy hill.
Continuing the sequence, the confined greenhouse atmosphere is convectively heated through molecular collisions with hotter opaque surfaces; its composition is at least 99.95% by volume nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and argon. Carbon dioxide, only about 0.035% of the trapped hot air, is insignificant in this role. Drivers of mobile greenhouses recognize this principle too, when they crack open windows of their parked vehicles to partially disable the trap. Any gas can convectively transfer heat, but no gas can possibly mimic greenhouse-type entrapment of hot air. A greenhouse-carbon dioxide analogy has no logical basis.
Because a greenhouse obviously warms in the sunshine, the second law of thermodynamics is sometimes misconstrued. However, using the pool table analogy, if a person could repeatedly strike moving balls as rapidly as the sun pours visible photons into a greenhouse, the chaos on the table reasonably simulates greenhouse heating. But terminate the energy input, and the dissipation process mandated by the second law becomes obvious; a greenhouse cools, and the balls stop.
Advocates err when they equate absorption of IR photons by atmospheric carbon dioxide to absorption of exponentially higher intensity visible photons by objects inside a greenhouse. This exponential energy relationship, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, is fundamental to thermal radiation and establishes the location of visible photons at the summit and IR photons near the base of typical greenhouse energy hills. For example, visible photons carry the intense energy representing solar surface temperatures. This intensity rapidly decreases with temperature of the emitter such that the human body liberally emits IR photons through our metabolic process, but is much too cold to emit visible photons. Even warm dirt emits IR photons from these lower temperature foothills of human habitation.
Consequently, carbon dioxide should properly be compared with water rather than with greenhouse contents. In all of its phases (gas, liquid and solid), water absorbs in the same region of the IR spectrum as carbon dioxide, and both are transparent to visible radiation. Significantly, the polar ice caps, glaciers and general snow cover all absorb this weaker radiation, obey the second law mandate, and remain frozen. However, advocates mistakenly claim that, despite existing for ages under direct solar IR bombardment, these frozen masses are melting now because carbon dioxide "traps" and leaks IR photons like soggy sponges. They offer no corroboration or experimental evidence to support their exaggeration.
The second law of thermodynamics prohibits carbon dioxide from arresting or reversing the spontaneous downhill flow of energy, putting advocates in the awkward position of insisting that a trace atmospheric component's innocent participation in a natural heat dissipation process is responsible for warming a planet. The fictitious "trapped heat" property, which they aggressively promote with a dishonest "greenhouse gas" metaphor, is based on their misrepresentation of natural absorption and emission energy transfer processes and disregard of two fundamental laws of physics. Their promotional embellishments have also corrupted the meaning of "greenhouse effect," a term originally relating the loose confinement of warm nighttime air near ground level by cloud cover, to hot air trapped inside a greenhouse."
Tom Kondis is a retired chemist and consultant with practical experience in absorption and emission spectroscopy.
There's a reason he calls himself "Oldschool".....the name speaks for itself.
You know, it won't matter what evidence you put in front of these people that live in the mid-Victorian era....they will deny, deny, deny.
There is no way I'm reading all that..
Well Sandi . . . put up the evidence . . . I posted the facts on CO2 . . . the GW myth defies the laws of Thermodynamics . . . so now its your turn . . . post the science, the real provable, repeatable science that CO2 does anything but feed plants . . . I have been asking for 10 years. I know you won't . . . cause it don't exist . . . only morons like Algoar making movies with no facts and brain-deal lefties jumping on the buss of global doom.
There is more ice today in the arctic than at this time last year, the globe is cooling . . . hence they changed the name to climate change . . . well, the climate is always changing . . . fact!!!
Omar . . . you wouldn't want to do that . . . you might learn something!!
"You know, it won't matter what evidence you put in front of these people that live in the mid-Victorian era....they will deny, deny, deny."
Sandi . . . when you make your mind up on something because of computer models, a flake like James (always wrong) Hansen and divinity school dropout Al Goar . . . you demonstrate that you have the intelligence of say a Parii Hylton.
As Jacque Chiraque said in 1998 . . . "Kyoto is the first step to Global Governance."
sandi, it's not worth the effort.
Omar, here's a summary.
Dog's howling at a full moon.
oldschool, save your energy.
I don't debate nonsense. Usually, ;).
I read many news sources from around he world over the course of a week and for almost a year now there have been tiny articles stating that China, Brazil and the U.S. have roared past Europe in developing alternative energy. China and Brazil along with other countries but on a smaller scale are building state of the art factories and transportation systems that are far ahead of most of the same infrastructure in use in Europe and North America when it comes to efficiency and carbon footprint. The fact that our right wing MSM is just waking up to this fact means someone in Harpers office pulled their heads out of the tar sands and looked around.
Every report I have seen on this subject states that Canada is at the bottom of the worlds list of countries when it comes to preparing for the new world economy with the U.S. and many European countries like Britain not far ahead. One of the main reasons for Ontario following the pattern of the U.S. rust belts shut down in the last recession, this time around is its aging inefficient factories.
With a coming world price on carbon the ony way any country is going to survive is to put all their resources into new companies and technologies and abandon the old ones for what they are: dinosaurs that just haven't gone extinct yet.
The green shift is a tiny step in the right direction but irt will take 10 times that effort and change from all levels of government if we will even have the slightest chance of surviving in the new world that is emerging.
The rest of the world is not as stupid as we are.
Oldschool
"oldschool, save your energy.
I don't debate nonsense. Usually, ;)"
It is what they all say when they can't back-up their point. And some just throw out insults. So oldschool you're just wasting your
time. It's their way or the highway
there is no persuading in them.
My advice to climate alarmists is that now is an appropriate time to start planning your exit strategy. The whole IPCC/UNFCCC edifice is about to disintegrate. I described these events in my recent memos. My position during all these years has been very simple. I could find no evidence of unnatural changes in the officially published hydrometeorological records. In the attached memo, for the first time I go on the attack. Not only is there no believable evidence in the data to support climate alarmism, but the evidence refutes the IPCC’s claims and completely undermines its position.
The globe is cooling, the glaciers are advancing and Bangladesh is not being inundated by rising sea levels. Public interest is falling and the media are becoming more critical. The possibility of nations reaching agreement on meaningful actions to control, let alone reduce, their undesirable emissions is receding by the day. The basic science underlying the IPCC’s position is being eroded away, stone by stone.
There is a growing and very perceptible groundswell of public and scientific opinion that is questioning the very basis of climate alarmism. The alarmists are no longer dealing with a gullible public and ambitious poticians.
The rising tide of knowledge will become unchallengeable. This is the route that I have followed. Ever since I became involved in this climate change issue, way back in 1993, I reported that there is no evidence in the data to support the alarmist claims. The other side insisted that their computer models were infallible and that I was wrong. I did not try to prove that they were wrong. I just kept reiterating that there was no evidence in the data to support their theories. This was also my 93-page message to the Stern Review. You will recall their basic argument. Increasing undesirable greenhouse gas emissions result in rising global temperatures. These increase evaporation from the oceans. Energy is thereby transferred to the atmosphere. This in turn amplifies the greenhouse effect. All of this results in an intensification of the hydrological cycle: more extreme floods and droughts, etc etc. All of this results in threats to our precious plant and animal species and human life on this planet. (But as the analysis shows,) there is no evidence of changes in open water surface evaporation that are synchronous with global temperature changes during the period of record. This is a body blow for the climate alarmists. There is absolutely no evidence that global warming increases evaporation from open water surfaces, including the oceans.
If the alarmists try to follow the adaptation route, they will be squashed underfoot by civil engineers and applied hydrologists. There is only one remaining option. Abandon ship. In the meantime, you may find this item on the web interesting.
http://media.theaustralian.news.com.au/nich/20080711_food.htm
Oldschool said...
Well Sandi . . . put up the evidence . . . I posted the facts on CO2 . . . the GW myth defies the laws of Thermodynamics . . . so now its your turn . . . post the science, the real provable, repeatable science that CO2 does anything but feed plants
.....yawn...no one wanted to read yours so why would anyone want to write a book on a blog....yawn.
PS Oldschool - I haven't seen Gore's Inconvenient Truth or heard any of his speeches....looking forward to it though.
KNB - I think the butler did it or maybe Col. Mustard in the library....we'll have to ask Harper what he thinks.
Oldschool said...
Well Sandi . . . put up the evidence . . . I posted the facts on CO2 . . . the GW myth defies the laws of Thermodynamics . . . so now its your turn . . . post the science, the real provable, repeatable science that CO2 does anything but feed plants
.....yawn...no one wanted to read yours so why would anyone want to write a book on a blog....yawn.
PS Oldschool - I haven't seen Gore's Inconvenient Truth or heard any of his speeches....looking forward to it though.
KNB - I think the butler did it or maybe Col. Mustard in the library....we'll have to ask Harper what he thinks.
Right where its at....It's their way or the highway
there is no persuading in them.
6:09 PM
You got that right, Right - no persuading us to the wrong side of the issue at all.
anon, I don't think anyone at the PMO has taken their head out of the sand, but I do hope stories such as these become more mainstream.
Yes, it will take more than the Green Shift to turn this around and I'm confident that Dion is well aware of that.
The rest of the world is not as stupid as we are.
Indeed. Well, 30% of us anyway.
Right, the scientific community and countries around the world have presented the best case they have based on fact.
I don't have to back it up.
Hack scientists who also rent themselves out as consultants aren't going to persuade me with their wild theories.
Any widely peer reviewed papers put out by this guy.
Is the rest of the scientific community running to back him up? No.
If you want to put your trust into these nuts, go for it. It's your right, but the debate was over a long time ago and it's people like this who prevent progress by dragging us backwards.
Waste of time.
KNB - I think the butler did it or maybe Col. Mustard in the library....we'll have to ask Harper what he thinks
lol.
Oldschool
"If you want to put your trust into these nuts, go for it. It's your right, but the debate was over a long time ago and it's people like this who prevent progress by dragging us backwards."
"Waste of time."
Knb thanks for proving my point on insults. Jeeez it didn't take long did it oldschool;)
"It is what they all say when they can't back-up their point. And some just throw out insults. "
No, it's what you do when you can't be bothered trying to penetrate the steel hull you people call a cranium. I just love this nonsense- oh you won't debate me, you must be wrong. Let me know when someone intelligent shows up, so far it just seems like a bunch of mediocre misfits, detached from reality, and to be frank, not particularly swift. Why bother. Who the fuck cares what wrong is where its not and oldtool think? I mean REALLY.
right, I'm stating facts, not insults.
You're for the crowd who said smoking was safe, when it had been proven otherwise.
I'm not.
You won't convince me and I have no interest in convincing people who are determined to set back an issue that requires immediate attention, especially when the only motivation to do so is to protect those who are causing the problem.
Call it a day and get back to me when your kids are asking you why you were so determined to leave them a mess.
Well Steve, I take solace in the fact that Canada's position on this, under this government might now see the light of day.
Is this a one off expose? Maybe, but it's going to be tough to dodge if there are serious questions posed.
I really wish the really terrific environmental groups we have in this country spoke out more.
And, the only insults here are those to our intelligence.
"I really wish the really terrific environmental groups we have in this country spoke out more."
Oh, you mean the experts that have spent their entire careers studying the issue. What do they know? I mean these people here are your blog, these are the bright ones. In all seriousness, I can't remember a more ridiculous "debate", and it really demonstrates the negative side of the internet, because the medium allows for the ordinary ignorant to find a common purpose, deciminating anything they can find, creating this false reality. It's amazing and sad all at once. I just don't respect them, hence the mockery.
Anyways, good post, glad to hear of some movement.
KNB
"right, I'm stating facts, not insults."
Silly me,and I was taught in school
calling people "nuts" because you disagree with their opinion was an insult. Those darn public schools;)
I have no intention to convince you or any other closed minded people. You can spin and twist all you want.
"...especially when the only motivation to do so is to protect those who are causing the problem."
I do not agree with you 100% on this statement knb.
I believe most of the deniers we are seeing care more about the politics than the actual principles.
I would bet a sizable amount of money that I do not have that if Stephen Harper were to actually have a genuine conversion to acceptance of global warming as a theory the folks like oldschool, Wilson and Right would fall over themselves hopping on the band wagon.
They would accept any policy to address GW, regardless of its impact on the economy, if it is put forward by Mr. Harper.
Conversely, they will never accept anything put forward by Mr. Dion, which is why I do not bother debating these folks most of the time. They will not be convinced so there really is no point.
On the other hand, the same can be said of us. It is going to take more than the occasional Big Oil financed scientist stating he has disproven GW before we are convinced. So, I would suggest that they are wasting their time.
"Silly me,and I was taught in school calling people "nuts" because you disagree with their opinion was an insult. "
Except when the reference is factually based, then it's just a valid observation. I guess it's our fault for noticing.
For all you people out there,I would like to say that I don't deny that climate change / global warming is going on. I dispute the actual cause to it period. But will this make any difference? Of course not,you people are still going to go on and call me and others a denier but I digress.
For your information outlib I would still be against about the causes of global warming even if Mr.Harper accepted it.
Steve it really demonstrates the negative side of the internet, because the medium allows for the ordinary ignorant to find a common purpose, deciminating anything they can find, creating this false reality.
That statement is a keeper my friend.
It's been a steep climb, but I'm still optimistic as I'm sure you are.
If this government is ousted, (as they should be), the tune will change. They'll be busy listening to their own echo and with any luck, that will be reported.
I hear you ottlib, but I think they are going to a place, reading this stuff, to the point that they believe it.
Indeed if Harper changed his mind tomorrow, they'd follow.
All I can say is huh? I can't imagine being that simplistic, that maleable.
Sad.
Right, if you accept it's happening, then sign up to change it.
We may not be able to shift it all, but we may be able to mitigate it and that's our only shot now.
Why go backwards?
Here's an old vid that jimme referred to at Steve's place.
Debate it and maybe we'll listen.
Sorry KNB post 8:56 pm I've seen this vid.link before,and I don't buy it.The planet has been warming up since the last ice age. There wasn't "BIG OIL" back then was there?
This person on the video is talking about a doomsday scenario.
Want to scare people? What about this,a killer asteroid! Why isn't anyone talking about that,and what to do about it? I mean the earth has come close to being hit a few times in the last decade. I think that we have seen this in the news a few times right?
The same people that are worried about climate change / global warming,why aren't they demanding that their governments to try to do something about a killer asteroid. Just look at history. It has happened before. Why wouldn't happen again tomorrow or in a hundred years?
"Obviously, China still has much work to do, but the point is they are working on the issue."
Wasn't that Dion's counter to Ignatieff during the debates - substitute the word we for China.
I dunno knb, good intentions are gonna stop us from frying, if and that's a big if, we are indeed frying. Why do I get the distinct impression that for many people, this Green stuff is all about feeling good about ourselves? If this is so important and drastic action should be taken. If not, then let's keep re-cycling and looking after the environment like we've been doing more and more these past years and deal with other pressing issues...like the economy.
And let's leave the conference gavel-banging to others.
You're kidding right harold?
Economy and Environment, not connected in 2008?
Pulleze.
right, argue the vid.
You won't because you can't.
He includes your denial. In fact, he makes your case, yet you can't even defend that.
Astonishing.
"right, argue the vid."
"You won't because you can't."
KNB you take out climate change / global warming from the vid and replace it with killer asteroid. You would get the same
doomsday scenario that he is talking about.
So why won't you argue that? Amazing isn't? Shocking! Don't give me the excuse that this is not the post or the place for it.
Because climate change / global warming is about earth future so is an asteroid hitting it.
This isn't fiction it is fact. So what do you have to say to that?
Knb I will not argue that vid,because it is so ridiculous. If I would take his logic,it would be like me not ever going out of my home why you ask? Simple if I do go out I might get by a bus. I do not intend to live with what if.
Now let me see you argue my point! Let me guess you will not.
Ottlib said:
"I would bet a sizable amount of money that I do not have that if Stephen Harper were to actually have a genuine conversion to acceptance of global warming as a theory the folks like oldschool, Wilson and Right would fall over themselves hopping on the band wagon."
Absolutely correct ottlib! It shows how much these people don't think for themselves. They have to follow the party line & not work things out through reason & logic.
As I commented in a previous post here it's up to the MSM to keep this in the forefront. To hammer away with the truth & dispose of their parroting the CONs talking points only.
We are so "fried" on the world stage now. We've lost our credibility on different fronts thanks to Steve & boys, mostly, Oda being the "girl" exception. And just look at Clements remarks at the WHO conference. *shudder*
I watched some of "An Inconvenient Truth" last night but it was late so fell asleep about 1/2 way through, lol. But it's on the TMN channels so shall be able to watch it again, to the end. It's excellent!
Enough about climate! I want to know more about who exactly Clare Beckton is! Expert on the Charter, equality rights and Aboriginal policy issues? A Harper appointee?? I smell something. How are women around the country reacting to Ms Beckton's year and change at Status of Women? She didn't impress me at all watching this afternoons repeat of an April committee hearing.
Here's her bio omar.
Hmmm, she taught at Dal for a while.
I'll see what else I can dig up, but I share your sentiment.
The Lib's have been up in arms over the change, well actually all the oppostion have been.
I was rather stunned to hear that the SOW budget is something in the range of $24 million annually. I mean really, what a joke. That is hen scratch in this day and age. The entire blueberry crop in Nova Scotia is worth about the same amount. Hardly break the bank numbers.
I know, it's pathetic Omar.
It's been out of the news for a while, but many groups were up in arms and no doubt will be again when the Fall session comes back.
Maria Minna is the Liberal go-to person on this and Dion has spoken out as well.
I wonder what amount is budgeted annually for the UN these days? Surely the Cons allocation of $200 million over 5 years to an emergency response fund
can't be viewed as generous? $40 million a year? From a nation that participates in a global economy worth gazillions? Sad.
Post a Comment