Shock! Horror! Tory MP suggests there are costs associated with action on climate change
February 17, 2007 · By Joel
Tory MP links action on climate change to suicide:
Opposition MPs and environmentalists are baffled and outraged by warnings from a Conservatives [sic] MP that aggressive action to fight climate change and air pollution could lead to an increase in domestic violence and suicides.
…
“With short-term transition toward medium- and long-term targets, there’s potential for a lot of dislocation, which is a term for some very painful costs along the way: job loss, anxiety, depression, bankruptcy, domestic violence, costs to employment insurance or retraining, loss of charitable dollars in communities for people who used to have high paying jobs but don’t anymore and the social services that are funded by those, and in rare instances, suicide,” said [Jeff] Watson, the [Conservative] MP for the Windsor, Ont. riding of Essex .
So is there a connection between unemployment and suicide? Yes.
Is there a connection between unemployment and domestic abuse? Yes.
So what’s the problem?
Watson’s comments drew an immediate reaction from expert witnesses and environmentalists appearing at the parliamentary committee who accused him of fear mongering.
“No one’s talking about closing down the automotive industry in Canada. No one is talking about creating unemployment,” said Dr. Norman King, an epidemiologist at the urban environment and health department at Montreal’s public health agency.
Ok. But just because you’re not talking about it, doesn’t mean that it won’t happen. Meeting Kyoto targets would impose tremendous costs on industry. As much as you want to cross your fingers and really, really wish it were otherwise, CEOs of major industrial emitters aren’t going to deduct those costs from their own paycheques. They’re going to fire people.
NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen said Watson should retract his comments, because they are damaging the government’s credibility on reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.
Because nothing screams climate-change-denier like an unwillingness to destroy thousands and thousands of jobs.
“It’s intellectually dishonest to connect what we do about our environmental obligations to people hurting themselves, or their children or wives,” Cullen said in an interview.
What’s intellectually dishonest, Mr. Cullen, is pretending that there are no costs associated with “what we do about our environmental obligations.” It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that we live in a happy-fun, ice-cream-and-puppies world, where, if you’re pure of heart, you can reduce emissions, and create jobs, and end racism and cure AIDs and get the girl, all in a day’s work, through the magic of government.
Links between unemployment and suicide and domestic abuse have been empirically demonstrated. There’s nothing dishonest about reminding Canadians that those are some of the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, it’s dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Of course there are costs. Who or what agency is going to measure the standards that have to be met by this bill?
I really think that the error rests with Peter Milliken, and he’s made a bad call in this situation. Once a Liberal, always a Liberal….you just can’t trust them.
Hmmm. What we went through with Trudeau does not ring a bell for these assholes? Guess if it didn’t happen in Toronto or Montreal, it doesn’t count.
Massive costs like Suzuki says between 1 to 1.5% of GDP… per year… any ideas how much?
What will gay marriage cost us too?
Interestingly enough, Holland and Dion’s musings about a NEP are already having an effect on the oil industry here in Alberta. Family members have indicated that they are in a slowdown because of the possibility of the Liberals actually following through on some sort of a NEP – after all, if the three opposition party’s can band together to force through Kyoto, I am sure the possibility is there to ram through a NEP – turn the big guns on Alberta so the rest of the country can sleep well knowing they won’t have to pay.
Stories of the 1929 market collapse might just play out again. Thanks to the Liberals.
If opposition members and ‘environmentalists’ are “baffled and outraged” when someone points out the obvious – it makes you wonder how bright these people are to begin with – apparently not very bright.
The Liberals own study estimated 450,000 unemployed for Kyoto scheme compliance, that’s why they completely ignored the accord. Duh.
“Links between unemployment and suicide and domestic abuse have been empirically demonstrated. ”
Yes but only on a chronic level. The idiot makes an aprioria statement based on nothing but a google. There is no empirical evidence for short term job loses correlating with increased domestic abuse rates or suicide. If you are looking at the history of chronically depressed areas of the world with no welfare or other government support Watsup might have a case but this is Canada! Welfare, EI, emergency funds and social services galor to keep the wolves from the door makes all these points moot.
One of these days geneticists will clone a dog that will eat up this kind of political spewings on the lawn of the electorate but until them all we can hope for is the local EDA will have a nomination race and can the embarhasment.
Jeff Watson is a drama queen who is constantly seeking attention. Time for a spring cleaning.
Were ‘Rae Days’ as devastating to Ontario as the NEP was to Alberta? anyone know?
Can’t Alberta use the ‘not withstanding clause’ to opt out of a federally imposed program, or is that only Quebec??
It is my understanding, that Equalization is unenforceable, thusly voluntary. Alberta could withold funds equal to the cost of implementing Kyoto. Kind of an Alberta style Equalization.
“There is no empirical evidence for short term job loses”
What makes you think that these losses would be in any way “short term”?
“There is no empirical evidence for short term job loses correlating with increased domestic abuse rates or suicide.”
What makes you think that these losses would be in any way “short term”?
[...] Your page is on StumbleUpon [...]