Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congratulations, Canada!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » Canada Donate to DU
 
ailsagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 08:12 PM
Original message
Congratulations, Canada!!
Edited on Mon Jan-24-05 08:14 PM by ailsagirl
I just read that Canada is among the top environmentally conscientious countries in the world!! I'm not surprised (I knew Canada cared about the environment) but I am delighted that you are getting kudos for it. Not like the U.S.-- we're #45 (inexcusable).

Good job-- you guys have your priorities in order

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/24/news/environment.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh Canada!
:thumbsup: :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Guess we can't "blame Canada"
when global warming ruins the Earth in 10 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. Canada has high per capita energy use, though
IIRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. Their Deforestation Rates Rival Ours
One of the very few things the shrub administration has gotten right was a short-term steep tariff on soft lumber from Canada. The Chretien administration allowed lumber companies to clear cut unspeakable swaths of old-grown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
achtung_circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Forestry (and other resources) are a provincial area of responsibility.
Chretien had no say over what BC did or did not allow to happen to BC's trees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Technically, Yes, But...
Just like in the United States, the nation's top elected official has plenty of political capital. Besides, the problem was not isolated to BC. It continues to occur in every one of the largest provinces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
achtung_circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I beg your pardon.
Chretien?
Political capital?
British Columbia?
NOT.

And if you are talking about rain forest it's BC that occurs.

Granted, there is too much forestry in northern Alberta. Large areas are being harvested. But that isn't softwood. It's made into Oriented Strand Board (OSB) and not subject to tarriff.

I believe Chretien got in as the lesser of two evils and without any capital to play with.

Do you have info suggesting otherwise?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I Was Referring To ALL Deforestation
If you look at the clear cutting in the eastern provinces, especially Ontario, it's at an epidemic rate and, even though I'm a yank, I remain firmly convinced that the former PM could have intervened much more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
achtung_circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. The PM has no, that's no authority to "intervene".
Constitutionally, resources are provincial. To get some idea of what a clusterfuck such intrusion occasions ask about "National Energy Policy", especially in Alberta. It's a tough one to google, because almost every country has NEP.

The softwood ban by the US was totally driven by Southern lumber producers, especially Georgia Pacific. It in fact, pissed off the Pacific Northwest producers as the Washington/BC industry was so closely entwined.

If you have information about Ontario clearcutting please pass it on, I'd be interested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. that really is bizarre
One of the very few things the shrub administration has gotten right was a short-term steep tariff on soft lumber from Canada.

Does someone really imagine that Bush did this to protect Canadian forests???


The Chretien administration allowed lumber companies to clear cut unspeakable swaths of old-grown.

We don't actually have "administrations" up here, y'know; one might quite properly say "the Chrétien government", since he was the leader of the party "in government". The PM and Cabinet are members of the legislative branch, first.

I'm not really conversant with forestry policy ... but federal "political capital" up here tends to come in the form of money that the feds disburse (or withhold) under the spending power. If there's no money in the balance, then there's no stick or carrot, and a province or territory will pretty much do what it likes -- and a provincial government with the same party name as a federal government won't always like (or at least, in the federal case, pay lip service to) the same things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-05 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. and allow me to congratulate San Francisco
(Don't know what part of CA you're in.)

Ask google for "san francisco" tax bags and you'll get today's news stories. Here's one:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/25/BUGCJAVPAI1.DTL

Getting consumers to cut down on grocery bags is a noble goal, but is charging them 17 cents apiece the best way to achieve it?

Today, the San Francisco Commission on the Environment is expected to adopt a resolution urging the Board of Supervisors to pass an ordinance requiring supermarkets in the city to charge 17 cents for every plastic or paper bag "to reduce the proliferation of unnecessary bags and provide funds to mitigate the negative impacts caused by them."

... The department estimated that it costs the city 7.2 cents per bag to collect and dispose of them and 5.2 cents to clean littered bags off the streets.

It turns out a lot of San Francisco residents are putting plastic grocery bags in their curbside recycling and composting bins, where they don't belong. This contamination of the recycling and compost streams costs Norcal Waste Systems, the privately owned company that has the garbage-collection contract in San Francisco, 2.2 cents per bag.

Landfill costs amount to 2.4 cents per bag.
Seems to me like it's probably the *only* way to go about it. I assume that SF has tried some sort of urging and pleading already. Even that might help a little, if it were done more generally. And of course the immediate costs to a municipality are just a small part of the equation.

Me, I've been taking my bags back since 1971. I recently invested $20 in 20 big blue IKEA bags with handles. I'd been contemplating making myself a set out of those blue tarpaulins. (At that point, I was using cloth bags for all non-grocery shopping, and mainly getting paper grocery store bags, which then held the newspapers put out for recycle. And any plastic bags that were acquired could also be recycled, given that my city then had just about the best paper/plastic/glass/tin recycling program on the continent. Then we had to cut back on costs, and now plastic bags and packaging and yogourt containers are not accepted.) And then there I was at the Ikea checkout, and discovered that once again I had not had an original idea. Big blue tarpaulin bags with "Ikea" cloth handles.

The first grocery store cashier who saw them admired our ingenuity at stealing Ikea bags. But no, the in-store bags are yellow; the for-sale ones are blue.

But still, I get arguments from cashiers. Let me wrap the meat in plastic bags, or you'll get salmonella in your bags. (That one devolved into rather a long squabble, since he just wouldn't give up.) And "I have a bag here, thanks" is something that appears to be on a frequency that cashiers don't hear.

And this is one of those generational things too. All the smug little schoolchildren who want to save the world from their elders' polluting ways ... and seem incapable of buying anything and stuffing it into their omnipresent backpacks without shrouding it in a big chunk of plastic. Not to mention all their throw-away fast food and drink containers, and their horrific consumption levels in general ...

So I say make the bag-wasters pay, and kudos to San Francisco for doing it. Hopefully, anyhow.

If only we could do something about the climate up here, of course, we could reduce our emissions a whole lot more. In my household, the ambient temperature in winter is never over 18C (less than 65F), and that's only in the rooms we're using at the time, we wear slippers and sweaters, and we put blankies on for watching TV. But I doubt that many of our neighbours coast to coast are joining us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamiltonHabs32 Donating Member (465 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
12. 6th is alright
we can do better, we can beat Sweden and Finland in hockey i'm sure we can overtake them in the environment rankings... They should award a large trophy each year to the winner of these rankings. haha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Canada Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC