Suzuki and Trudeau are both plain spoken people. They both strike me as straightforward. The difference is that Suzuki is much older and doesn’t appear to cater to anyone, while Trudeau obviously looks to his Liberal back-room advisers to tell him what way the wind is blowing. If the smoke is blowing at the young leader from his backside, and the Liberal string pullers want it that way, they aren’t about to save Trudeau.
Originally posted on John Klein - Regina:
Brad Wall says “…we need to do better in terms of more sustainably developing our energy resources…”
Unfortunately what he means is he wants to find ways of ensuring fossil fuels and uranium come out of the ground at an increasingly profitable pace, no matter the world’s demand/need for such things.
Greg Fingas views it as such, too.
He notes that oil pride goes “Before the fall”. (Although technically oil prices have already fallen.)
“The government’s climate change policy works like this: extract every last drop of fossil fuel then pray to God that no one uses it.” – G. Monbiot
I’ll add that they hope no one uses it, so long as someone first buys it. Perhaps we need to consider if…
View original 520 more words
This is concerning information.
So, how do our politicians (in B.C. and elsewhere) deal with the fact that we need to triple the size of our forests by 2050 to have a fair shot at avoiding 2 degree climate change (which will ruin everything)?
I was impressed to learn that France had made new commercial buildings do this. I’ve felt badly that new buildings going up all over the University of Regina campus since I started paying attention to it in 1998, haven’t put a single solar panel up on them. There’s a building on Research Dr. with a round skylight that looks like a CD player, that would have been a perfect spot for some solar panels. At least the RIC building in 2006 had a partial green roof built onto its shady side.
I wonder if she gets paid, to ask that.
In the same time frame, Krause received significant funding from the oil, gas and mining industries and has said 90 per cent of her income in 2012, 2013 and 2014 was drawn from speaking fees and honorariums funded by industry sources.
Krause said the “90 per cent” comment was out of context, because she had “zero” income aside from her speaking arrangements. Krause said she earned money by working part-time as a piano teacher, among other things. She said her two most recent speaking gigs were not paid.
I’m not sure Fonda needs the money as badly as Krause makes us out to believe that’s her motivation.
It’s 2015, and the entire effing cabinet should understand perfectly that climate change is a serious economic and environmental problem that’s overdue to be tackled.
I honestly didn’t know who the Environment Minister was before this shuffle, and from Cox’s early comment it sounds like I needn’t bother still.
As you probably know, “Fair and Balanced” is the Fox News tagline that exists to trick the more easily fooled into thinking that’s what their actual objective is.
Check out today’s story from the Vancouver Observer about “@FairQuestions”, a Conservative friendly researcher who took thousands of dollars in speaking fees from oil companies and testified for Conservative ends in Parliament. This, after being connected to lucrative oil money roles through Senator Duffy.
The $10,000 fees were paid by the Association for Mineral Exploration of BC (AMEBC), Canadian Energy Pipelines Association (CEPA) and Taseko Mines between March 22nd and June 6, 2012. The Inuvik Petroleum Show paid $6000 for a June 21 appearance, along with Amanda Lang and Ezra Levant.
The B.C. mining group also appeared to go out of its way to pay her.
“We usually don’t have fees,” said John Buchanan, Director of Communications and Public Affairs of AMEBC. “It’s a professional opportunity. It’s a way for speakers to give back to their industry.”
www. ezralevant. com/protecting_canadas_future has a video of Krause on Levant’s former Sun News show.
ADDED: One of the most disturbing points in the video is when Krause says she thinks the debate has been skewed because big money from the cities is drowning out small voices in rural Canada, and that funding should be “out in the open”.