Honourable John Baird
Minister of the Environment
Dear Minister Baird,
I am writing to provide you with my comments on your department's recently published "Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act 2007".
I must remind you of your obligation to obey the laws of Canada. The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act requires you to produce a plan to honour Canada's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to an average of 6% below the 1990 emission levels between 2008 and 2012.
Although the "Climate Change Plan" lists numerous small steps to curb the growth in Canada's emissions, your plan foresees Canada missing the 2008-2012 Kyoto target by a wide margin, and in fact not reaching the target level until sometime after 2020. Under your approach, regulations on heavy industry - the source of almost half of Canada's greenhouse gas pollution - will not come into effect until 2010, and even then they fail to set a binding cap on industrial emissions.
Minister, you have promised to make "best efforts" towards Kyoto. No one could read your plan and call this the best that Canada can do. Your plan fails the test that the law sets out, which is to honour Canada's Kyoto commitment.
I realize this is a difficult and demanding task, but it is the law, and it is your responsibility to uphold the law. The climate crisis is too grave to waste any more time. We need you to take real action now.
Sincerely,
http://www.avaaz.org/en/canadian_climate_crime/c.php/?cl=19569902
Note: http://www.avaaz.org/en...
Re: "Climate Change Plan"
Posted on Thursday, September 20 at 11:37 by DiogenesContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
That's a very weak argument for at least 2 reasons:
1) Unless the law is changed, no matter if the public agrees with the law or not, the law is still in force.
2) A lack of comments can just as well be an indication that the public does not support the governments position.
Unfortunately, the enforcement of the "law" has proven itself to be something of a joke in this country. In many cases, only those who are not in a position of power are subject to enforcement. The "law" itself is often crafted as a means to protect the government and its policies as well as to protect those who sit in power. The various law enforcement agencies are both a creation of, and an integral part of the government, therefore these enforcement bodies by nature simply will not enforce their own laws when they themselves are in violation of the law - history shows this to be the case with few exceptions.
Until the government's monopoly on government is broken, it will be able to do whatever it wants, with only the prospect of a public uprising available to keep it in check. Public uprisings are of course considered to be illegal by the government, and are subject to enforcement through military force if deemed necessary.