I don't know an exact ecological footprint number, although colder countries have significantly larger footprints because of darker, colder winters.
I did recently look at some CO2 emissions/year figures, which is a significant part of the issue:
US currently putting out in the neighborhood of 6000(10^6) tonnes ,
China at 4500 (although that number is double what it was 15 years ago). India, Russia, Japan are about 1250
Canada, even with "Alberta" spewing away, is about 600.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades
*sigh*
attack ads make me a saaaaad panda.
plus, there isn't even an election going on... this is smear for the sake of smear... pre-emptive smear.
the content of the ads, while legitimate, is a product of much more than the policy decisions of the liberals. Environmental change is a 30+ year plan. You can't blame the choices of one administration if they were founded on the infrastructure built on the choices of previous ones.
How much has NAFTA hurt the environment? When you're just worried about profit margin to avoid the buyout, you cut corners.... A product of the Mulroney administration.
While we're on the subject as well... how constructive is retroactive criticism of Dion's record really?? How much control over environmental change and damage does the environment minister REALLY have? How much of the impact is in the hands of corporations and businesses?
Anyway, it's just another hollow political move by Harper...
The ad itself was seriously low budget, and yes, it reminded me of some mock-up parody attack ad from air farce
|
Wait, I'm confused.
Can you clarify the "can't blame the choices of one administration if they were founded on the infrastructure built on the choices of previous ones."
Almost everything is founded on a liberal government. Except for 9 years of Mulrony and a very brief Joe Clark blip, we have 45ish years of a liberal government founding. If environmental change is a 30 year plan, we can certainly look just as hard at Trudaus' 70's and 80s as we look at Mulrony's 80's.
So you don't blame the liberals for the NAFTA choices of the PCs, but then we can't blame the current Conservatives for almost anything that was started by the last 14 years of liberals?
Also, while I don't agree with the idea of using the adds, I think Paul Martin was ousted in no small part because he was the finance minister of a (publicly known) corrupt government. I think the ads were an appropriate campaign style response to Dion's own campaigning.
I had talked with friends how it was ironic that Dion was suddenly running an election style campaign with an environmental platform, when he was the environment minister, granted for a short time, of an environmentally lacking government.