Cialis - Buy Cialis Online

“Under this government, Canada has gone from leader to laggard on climate change,” said Mr. McGuinty. “Mr. Harper will be remembered as the Prime Minister who fiddled while the environment and the economy burned before his eyes.”

Fact check: During the Liberal reign greenhouse gas emissions shot up 35% above the Kyoto targets they signed on for (they were supposed to go to 6% below 1990 levels, instead they went to 29% above). That hardly qualifies us to be called a “leader” under the Liberal watch. In the last few years Canada’s emissions have actually been following a downward trend (but you haven’t heard that in the media have you?).

Perhaps Mr. McGuinty’s most irresponsible comments however were that the Prime minister is fiddling while the environment burns before his eyes. It is hard to counter that assertion when there is almost no press coverage of the substantial steps this government is taking towards an absolute reduction in emissions and environmental sustainability. Here are a few examples from just the last week:

1. Vancouver Island, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (Cypress Creek hydro electric)
2. Salmon Arm, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (solar powered hot water)
3. Calgary, AL - Investment in Renewable Energy (solar powered hot water)
4. Elmira, PE - Investment in Renewable Energy (wind energy)
5. Revelstoke, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (South Cranberry Creek hydro electric)
6. Norway, PE - Investment in Renewable Energy (wind energy)
7. Vancouver, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (Kwalsa hydro electric)
8. Harrison Lake, BC - Investment in Renewable Energy (low impact hydro)

That does not exactly look like “fiddling” while the environment burns. Unfortunately most Canadians have never heard of these initiatives except those affected by local media.

While the Liberals have been talking, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have been working. Maybe if the Liberals would tone down the rhetoric and quit spewing all their hot air, Canada’s GHG inventories would be even lower.

One of the exciting new technologies which is flourishing under PM Harper’s Conservative government is small-scale hydro projects which are producing renewable electricity in British Columbia, with a tiny environmental impact.

One example of success is Cloudworks Energy Inc. describe their new process this way:

“Run-of-River projects are dramatically different in design, appearance and impact from conventional hydroelectric projects. There are two main differences. First, there is no water storage other than the limited amount required to submerge the intake pipe. Second, there is no alteration of downstream flows, since all diverted water is returned to the stream below the powerhouse.

Potential sites tend to exist at high altitudes, characterized by features such as fast flows, steep canyons, waterfalls and other natural barriers. These features reduce the suitability of such sites for potentially competing land uses such as recreation and, most importantly, limit fish presence and diversity.

British Columbia is fortunate to have a large number of such sites, particularly in the coastal mountain ranges. Run-of-river projects can be developed on appropriate sites with little if any negative impact on either aquatic or terrestrial habitat.”

The benefits of a “run-of-river” project over a conventional dam are immediately apparent when you view a systems diagram side by side (see links above).

This is the kind of innovation that we need to combat increasing greenhouse gas emissions and still maintain a viable economy and standard of living. Furthermore, this small-scale multiple input model of electricity generation mirrors the internet packet model which revolutionized communications two decades ago.

The future is warmer and brighter with conservative innovation on the job.

The Liberal press loves to link Stephen Harper to US president George Bush because he has become the whipping boy for America’s stumbling economy and the unpopular war in Iraq. Leaving aside whether this criticism is justified, this is an age-old political trick of trying to saddle a political opponent with the stigma of a leader who is widely reviled in Canada.

This raises the question however of “What will the opposition do when George Bush is gone?” Perhaps that is why Stéphane Dion is threatening an election this fall; after November he will lose a major stick that he regularly uses to whip his minions into a frenzy.

A case in point that reveals just how phoney this partisan stereotyping is, the Edmonton Journal published an article this week stating that Japan’s Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, is demanding that “developing countries be obliged to join their industrialized counterparts in cutting greenhouse gas emissions under a new international framework to combat global warming to come into force in 2013.” This is virtually identical to the position taken by the Harper government on the inclusion of all major emitters.

Of course this raises the question of who is following whom. At the end of the 2008 G8 Summit in Japan, the Prime Minister announced a “breakthrough” agreement on the urgent challenge of global warming.

“There is a new consensus on climate change,” said Prime Minister Harper. “The United States and Russia have joined with us this year and now all G8 countries agree on the goal of a 50 percent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Moreover, G8 leaders have also accepted our longstanding argument that the post-2012 global climate change framework must include all major emitters.”

Where is the Liberal apologist in the press who coins the new epithet “Fukuda clone“? It is just possible that Stephen Harper is demonstrating common sense and leadership because “developing countries are not obliged to cut CO2 emissions under the current framework” according to the article? The Edmonton Journal goes on to report that:

“Except for small island countries and the world’s least-developed nations, Japan will propose that developing countries be categorized based on certain indicators, such as per capita gross domestic product and their percentage of global CO2 emissions. Based on indicators showing the economic development levels of developing countries, Japan will demand those nations also be obliged to cut emissions.

The Japanese proposal aims to try to persuade emerging economies, such as Brazil, China and India, to accept obligatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.”

So is this some sad spinoff of The Clone Wars, or are world leaders finally coming to the conclusion that you can’t make any significant reductions in global emissions when the countries that produce nearly 3/4 of the world’s carbon are excluded from the agreement that Stéphane Dion led Canada into?

Trying to saddle Stephen Harper with George Bush’s unpopularity is a rapidly evaporating apparition. Sadly for the Liberals, “Fukuda clone” does not resonate with Canadians because the Japanese PM is not particularly unpopular here. No Liberal MP’s have been caught on tape stomping dolls of the Japanese leader. In short, the Japanese just don’t make as good of a lightning rod as a US Republican president. That is why you will hear very little in the press as the new crop of world leaders begins to coalesce around the brilliant leadership of Stephen Harper. That would only make him look better on the world stage, and the press will have none of that.

plavix mastercardnimotop mastercardmicardis mastercardmexitil mastercardlisinopril mastercardlanoxin mastercardcoumadin mastercardcordarone mastercardcartia mastercardcardizem mastercardcardarone mastercardaltace mastercardaggrenox mastercardaccupril mastercardorder cialis soft mastercardviagra mastercardgeneric cialis mastercardviagra professional onlinecialis professional onlinecialis professional onlineviagra mastercardkaufen viagracompare cialis pricesbuy generic viagrabuy generic cialisviagra professionalorder female viagrabuy levitraorder kamagraorder cialisorder levitrabuy cialis super activeorder cialis super activebuy generic cialisorder generic cialisbuy generic viagraorder generic viagrabuy cialisorder cialisbuy viagra no prescriptionordering viagra canadaxenicalxenicalbuy cialis professionalgeneric cialis onlinegeneric viagra onlinebuy viagra professionalorder viagra professionalcialis mail ordercialis ukviagra ukorder cialis softcialis professional onlinelevitra onlinelevitra onlineordering cialis on lineviagra professionalcialis professionalviagra professionalorder cialis professionalcompare viagra pricescompare cialis pricesorder viagra without prescriptionbestellen viagra mastercardbuy generic viagralevitra professionalorder viagra super active onlinecialis super active onlineorder cialis super active mastercardbuy generic cialis onlinegeneric cialis onlineordering viagrabuy viagra samplebrand cialisviagra soft orderingviagra soft orderingviagra super active plus

Yes that’s right, according to scientists there was a green shift about 9,000 years ago.

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) announced an investment of $2.5 million in a research project that will investigate the link between climate change, human genetics and the disappearance of an entire culture from the Boreal forest region of Siberia between 7,000 and 6,000 BC.

“Thanks to previous funding from SSHRC, we know there is about a 1,200 year gap in history where the people living in this region just seemed to disappear,” said Weber. “We are now trying to figure out what caused them to leave, and whether the groups who appeared more than 1,000 years later were genetically and culturally related to the first.”

One possible key, says Weber, is a long-ago shift in climate that—together with social and economic factors—caused a dramatic change in the ancient people’s culture, diet and migration patterns. 

“It will also build new understanding of Canada’s own ancient Aboriginal peoples, and contribute to the contemporary debate surrounding the effects of climate change on human culture,” said Stan Shapson, interim president of SSHRC.

That’s it, we’re too late! Catastrophic climate change took place 9,000 years ago and an entire culture of people did the green shift away from the Boreal forest. No doubt they fled the primordial carbon tax on their cooking fires. What is most puzzling however is how this period of climate change was impacted by the rapid industrialization of 7,000 BC.

During an announcement for the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve earlier this year, the government took the opportunity to recount some of their initiatives on environmental conservation:

“This is the Government of Canada’s fifth recent conservation announcement in Canada’s north, representing our commitment to preserving the North’s ecological treasures. The announcements include:

· In August 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the expansion of the boundaries of the Nahanni National Park Reserve, which protects of an additional 5,400 square kilometres of land within the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem;
· In November 2007, the government announced two major conservation initiatives that protect more than 10 million hectares of land in the Northwest Territories: the creation of a national park in the East Arm of Great Slave Lake, and the creation of a national wildlife area for the Ramparts River and Wetlands (Ts’ude niline Tu’eyeta); and
· In March 2007, the government announced funds to ensure that the Sahoyúé - §ehdacho National Historic Site of Canada on Great Bear Lake will be permanently protected.”

“With this historic agreement announced today, we are once again taking action to protect Canada’s North for future generations,” said Canada’s Environment Minister John Baird. “This agreement helps us ensure the conservation of a part of the Mackenzie Mountains natural region of Canada, and protect the ecological integrity of this area, a great complement to the massive expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve that we have already undertaken.”

“In the past year, the Government has taken action on major conservation initiatives, such as:
· A massive expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve;
· Major land withdrawals on the East Arm of Great Slave Lake, as well as the Ramparts River and Wetlands;
· Creation of the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area;
· $30 million to protect the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia;
· $3 million to the restoration of Stanley Park in Vancouver and Point Pleasant Park in Halifax;
· $225 million for the Nature Conservancy of Canada to preserve and conserve up to half a million acres of land across the country; and
· $5 million to protect the Sahoyúé §ehdacho National Historic Site on the shores of Great Bear Lake, the largest lake in Canada.”

Update: The Conservative government even has a Natural Areas Conservation Program
We’ve all heard about “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” but David Suzuki dropped an 80 foot black spruce into the peat lands of Canada’s boreal forest this week. In an article in Monday’s Times & Transcript, Mr. Suzuki used his entire space praising (dare we say “gushing” and “fawning over”) Dalton McGuinty’s decision to protect a large tract of northern forest.

“The announcement is significant not just in terms of conservation but also because it marks the first time a government in Canada has explicitly recognized the role nature conservation must play in combating global warming. The boreal’s forests and peatlands absorb and store massive amounts of carbon, making them a hedge against global warming. Scientists estimate that Ontario’s northern boreal alone absorbs 12.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year.” Mr. Suzuki said.

That would perhaps be praiseworthy - if it were true! It is incredible that Mr. Suzuki reserves his praise for a Liberal premier when the federal Conservative government has been taking steps to preserve Canada’s forests and waterways since within months of being elected! When it comes to commenting on Conservative initiatives on the environment however, Mr. Suzuki has nothing but harsh and consistent criticism.

This in itself would not serve as much of an indictment if he had not also recently endorsed Stephane Dion’s carbon tax plan. The oddly named “Green Shift” allocates a mere 6% of its revenues to anything environmental and sets absolutely no targets for emissions reductions, yet Mr. Suzuki had effusive praise for it!

He had no such praise for the first mandatory, absolute reductions in emissions that were introduced with the Conservatives’ green plan. He made no comment on the cap-and-trade measures or the availability of carbon offsets. He didn’t applaud Minister Baird for “putting a price on carbon,” rather he pulled a publicity stunt by confronting the Minister in front of cameras in a staged confrontation at the Toronto’s Green Living show. Never has there been a mention of the Conservatives’ requirement that the oil sands implement carbon capture and storage over the next few years, nor was there congratulations on effectively banning new dirty coal burning generating plants by 2012.

In short, Mr. Suzuki’s only consistency is consistent praise for Liberals (regardless of the worthiness of their plans) and consistent criticism of the Conservatives (regardless of their practical steps toward protecting the environment). A credible environmental advocate should not be so blatantly partisan!

Since Mr. Suzuki was so bold as to assert that the Liberal premiers actions mark “the first time a government in Canada has explicitly recognized the role nature conservation must play in combating global warming,” we thought a little research was in order to refresh our memories. The following is a sampling of the history of PM Harper’s Conservative government on conservation and environmental protection:

1. Plains Bison Reintroduced to Grasslands National Park of Canada as Part of “Prairie Persists” Initiative VAL MARIE, SASKATCHEWAN, May 24, 2006

2. The Government of Canada and Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation Take Steps to Create a New National Park on East Arm of Great Slave Lake LUTSEL K’E, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, OCTOBER 13, 2006 (33,525 sq. km)

3. St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada Celebrates the Doubling of its Original Size MALLORYTOWN LANDING, ONTARIO, October 21, 2006 (24 islands and 90 islets)
4. Torngat Mountains: From Park Reserve to National Park, OTTAWA, ONTARIO, December 1, 2006 (10,000 sq. km)
5. Canada’s New Government Invests $700,000 to Restore Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada SIDNEY, BRITISH COLUMBIA, March 5, 2007
6. Canada’s New Government Contributes to Ecologically Significant Lands Along the Rideau Corridor TOWNSHIP OF RIDEAU LAKES, ONTARIO, June 7, 2007
7. Canada, Saskatchewan and The Nature Conservancy: REGINA , Saskatchewan, February 29, 2008 (136 hectares)
8. Government of Canada Announces the Protection of More Precious Land in Canada’s North OTTAWA, Ontario, April 7, 2008 (an area one and a half times the size of Prince Edward Island)
   
9. Government of Canada supports development of new protected areas near Pacific Rim National Park Reserve NANAIMO, BRITISH COLUMBIA, March 27, 2008
10. Government Takes Action to Protect Cape Breton Highlands National Park and Improve Road Safety for Canadians CHÉTICAMP, NOVA SCOTIA, MARCH 19, 2008
11. Government of Canada Takes Action to Ensure Long Term Protection of Pacific Rim National Park Reserve UCLUELET, BRITISH COLUMBIA, January 23, 2008
12. Government of Canada Takes Landmark Action to Conserve Canada’s North OTTAWA, ONTARIO, NOVEMBER 21, 2007 (source2 (10 million hectares)
13. CANADA’S NEW GOVERNMENT OPENS PRAIRIE RESTORATION BUILDING IN GRASSLANDS NATIONAL PARK OF CANADA VAL MARIE, SASKATCHEWAN, September 27, 2007 (the construction of the Prairie Restoration Building. This building will be used to store vast amounts of native grass and wildflower seed, and revegetation equipment.)
14. PARKS CANADA ANNOUNCES RESTORATION OF CLAM BEDS IN KOUCHIBOUGUAC NATIONAL PARK OF CANADA KOUCHIBOUGUAC, NEW BRUNSWICK, September 7, 2007
15. Canada’s New Government Announces the Expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve 8 August 2007 (5,400 sq km)

You would think that somewhere along the line, Mr. Suzuki could have had a few kind words for some of the greatest expansion of protected lands in recent history. As for linking the boreal forest to a carbon sink, that has been a well-established fact going all the way back to 1994 with the Boreal Ecosystems Productivity Simulator. Both Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada have published extensively on it as well.

Climate change and global warming activists demand our respect as if they alone possess the moral high ground. Like all respect however, it has to be earned not demanded and this kind of partisan hyperbole makes Mr. Suzuki more of a political advocate than an environmental advocate.

Former Liberal leadership candidate and front-bench MP, Martha Hall-Findlay, was notably quoted as saying that “the effectiveness of Stephane Dion’s carbon tax could not be predicted, or even measured after the fact.” That set off a firestorm of controversy and comment on blogs across Canada. After all, why would Canadians agree to pay a huge new tax if they had no measure of its effect on the environment before or afterwards?

Earlier this week, she tried to clarify those comments by personally writing to one of Canada’s premier bloggers, Steve Janke. In her note, Ms. Hall-Findlay linked the effectiveness of Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax to the oil crisis of the 1970’s.

“It has been demonstrated repeatedly, around the world, that adding to market forces is the most effective way to affect behaviour. Those of us old enough remember significant fuel-reduction behaviour due to the 1970s oil crisis. There will be reductions in emissions from the Green Shift because we know that people will change their consumption patterns if polluting behaviours cost more.

My point is that both increased market oil prices and the imposition of a price on the burning of other fossil fuels, when working together, will reduce green-house gas emissions even further. It will, however, be difficult to determine the exact proportions of the reduction attributable to each.“

Here is what Ms. Hall-Findlay is clearly proposing: The Liberal carbon tax plan involves “adding to” the skyrocketing market price of fuel so that gas price increases “working together” with a Liberal carbon tax will cause people to “change their consumption patterns” thereby reducing emissions. The precedent that she cited for the dynamics required to “affect behaviour” was the “significant fuel-reduction behaviour due to the 1970’s oil crisis.”

Ms. Hall-Findlay is a lawyer and has stated her case clearly and with precedent. It is simple to research the facts surrounding the 1970’s oil crisis. When you do so, you will find that the events of the 1973 and 1979 oil crisis did in fact significantly affect consumption of carbon fuels.

“October 16, 1973 —Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Qatar unilaterally raise posted prices …and announce production cuts. Daily consumption dropped by 6.1% from September to February, and by 7% during summer of 1974, as the United States suffered its first fuel shortage since the Second World War. The large automobiles of the 1950s and 1960s were replaced by far more compact and energy efficient models.

The energy crisis led to greater interest in renewable energy and spurred research in solar power and wind power. It also led to …increased interest in mass transit.

In July 1979, President Jimmy Carter outlined his plans to reduce oil imports and improve energy efficiency in his “Crisis of Confidence” speech. During the speech, Carter wore a cardigan and encouraged citizens to do what they could to reduce their use of energy. He also installed solar power panels on the roof of the White House and a wood-burning stove in the living quarters.”

From a consumption point of view the oil crisis was a resounding success. There were however some less flattering effects of these crises:

“In the industrialized countries, especially the United States, the crisis caused the most hardship to the unemployed, the marginalized social groups, certain categories of aging workers, and increasingly, by younger workers. Schools and offices in the U.S. often closed down to save on heating oil; and factories cut production and laid off workers. In France, the oil crisis ended the Trente Glorieuses, 30 years of very high economic growth, and began the ensuing decades of permanent unemployment. In Australia, heating oil ceased being considered an appropriate winter heating fuel.

In Canada the industrial east suffered many of the same problems of the United States. The federal government attempted to correct this imbalance through the creation of the government-owned Petro-Canada and later the National Energy Program. These efforts produced a great deal of anger in the west producing a sentiment of alienation that has remained a central element of Canadian politics to this day. Overall the oil embargo had a sharply negative effect on the Canadian economy. The economic malaise in the United States easily crossed the border and increases in unemployment, and stagflation hit Canada as hard as the United States despite Canadian fuel reserves.”

This is what the Liberals are willing to accept in order to force Canadians to reduce consumption. That is not the worst of the news however. If Ms. Hall-Findlay is going to point to the crisis of the 1970’s as a model for reducing consumption, it is legitimate to ask “How much did the price have to rise in order to effect ’significant fuel-reduction behaviour’?” Here is what the historical record says:

“Since oil demand falls little with price rises, prices had to rise dramatically to reduce demand to the new lower level of supply. …The effects of the embargo were immediate. OPEC forced the oil companies to increase payments drastically. The price of oil quadrupled.“

“The Carter administration began a phased decontrol of oil prices on 5 April when the average price of crude oil was US$15.85… The world price of oil, …reached a peak in 1979 during the 1979 energy crisis, at more than US$80 per barrel.“

In 1973, the price of oil quadrupled. That is an increase of 400%! In 1979, the price of oil went from $15.85/barrel to more than $80/barrel. That is an increase of 500%!

What is the Liberal plan to “put a price on carbon” in Canada? Not only do they plan to do nothing about high fuel prices, they want to “add to” that cost so that their carbon tax “working together” with market forces will produce results like the 1970’s oil crisis. Clearly their initial tax targets are much too low to “change consumption patterns” and effect “fuel-reduction behaviour.”

If they really want to reduce carbon emissions like the 1970’s, the only way they can do it is by raising gas prices 400-500% and producing the economic devastation that was felt througout Canada, the US, France and Australia. Is this the Liberals hidden agenda that they will foist on Canadians once they get back to power? If not, then why are leading Liberals promoting their new carbon tax with exactly this type of justification?

With an updated federal definition of low-speed vehicles (LSVs), manufacturers of small LSV trucks can now begin to market them across Canada, announced the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities today. “The marketing of zero-emissions, electric low-speed trucks in Canada is good news. These low-speed trucks are environmentally friendly and represent one more step in our government’s ambitious environmental agenda,” said Minister Cannon.

Road use of LSVs, including vehicle licensing, is a matter for provinces and territories to regulate. Transport Canada continues to remind licensing authorities, as well as manufacturers and consumers, that the safety standards for LSVs do not match those of other motor vehicle classes. Conventional passenger cars must meet up to 40 safety standards, whether they are powered by electricity, gasoline, diesel, propane or natural gas.

Through the ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles Program and the Transportation Development Centre, Transport Canada encourages vehicle manufacturers to design and make electric cars and trucks that meet all of the safety standards that apply to conventional cars and trucks. This way, electric vehicles can offer the same level of occupant protection as conventional vehicles without tailpipe emissions or negative impact on local air quality.

Pictured above is an electric delivery vehicle undergoing testing in Toronto by courier company Purolator. While not technically a low speed vehicle, it represents the type of innovation that Canadian companies are exhibiting in pursuit of greener options. It is instructive to note that large corporations like Purolator are taking these steps without a punitive Liberal carbon tax forcing them to. We don’t need another Liberal tax grab that provides only pennies for the environment while being wrapped in green packaging.

In a masterful stroke of bridging an impasse in public policy, the Harper government has done what was once thought impossible.

According to a report in today’s Globe and Mail, “A committee of seemingly competing interests is reworking part of the Harper government’s green plan after conflicting complaints from industry and environmentalists. The panel of environmental groups, industry lobbyists and federal and provincial officials must report to cabinet by mid-September on ways to improve the Conservatives’ air-quality plan.”

What is the makeup of this committee?

“The committee includes representatives from the David Suzuki Foundation, the Toxics Watch Society of Alberta, Pollution Probe, the Sierra Club, the Canadian Lung Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Electricity Association, the Cement Association of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada and the federal and provincial governments.”

So here you have, sitting down at the table together, uber-environmentalists and the big polluters that Stéphane Dion wants to tax out of business. How’s that for building consensus?

What brought this diverse group together? “ ‘The fact that we’re working in this pressure cooker, that anybody can basically torpedo this process by pulling out of it, is what’s keeping us together,’ Mr. Lloyd said. ‘We all want an alternative to what the federal government originally proposed.’ ”

For years (yea decades) the environmental activists have been descrying that every government initiative “is not enough.” On the other hand, industry has always maintained that substantive action “will cripple them.” Like two kids in the schoolyard, the two sides taunted one another while Stéphane Dion stood by as Environment Minister and watched carbon emissions skyrocket and pollutants from industry produce record smog days in Canada.

Enter Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. With the hue and cry of special interest groups on all sides, the Harper government sat down and hammered out a plan to clean up Canada’s air quality. Whatever they proposed, they knew that they would be roundly criticized by one side or the other (or both). But rather than continue to facilitate the impasse by paying lip service to the environment, PM Harper and Minister Baird tabled some tough regulations that laid out the ground rules for what was unacceptable in Canadian air quality.

Predictably, the children on the playground protested unanimously over the new rules (although from opposite points of view). The principal then said, ‘If you don’t like these rules then sit down at the table and work out your differences.’ Faced with the option of mandatory regulations as soon as this fall, “A steering committee was created this past May and it has met several times so far this summer.”

While the government has been circumspect in its response, Environment Minister John Baird said: “It’s not every day you get a letter from the chemical producers and the Sierra Club, co-signed.” It looks like there’s a new principal in town.

Update: The ugly saga continues
Identity theft has become a major focus of the federal government’s efforts to crack down on crime. At the same time the Liberal Party of Canada is alleged to have committed what amounts to corporate identity theft. In more appropriate legal terms, it is the violation of trademark rights owned by a company call Green Shift.

In an article in today’s National Post, Green Shift (the company) spokesperson Jennifer Wright puts her case before the Canadian people. We say “case” because this dispute is actually the subject of a lawsuit which the company (Green Shift) filed in court against the Liberal Party of Canada for using their Green Shift name for a carbon tax plan called the Green Shift.

Sound confusing? Well that is actually the substance of the lawsuit. The company Green Shift spent the last decade building a reputation as an environmental sustainability company. They even went so far as to trademark their name to protect its integrity from others who would like to exploit the catchy phrase for other purposes.

When the Liberals launched their carbon tax plan, they simply called the company (Green Shift) and said ‘We’re about to use your name to promote our carbon tax. But don’t worry, you should be happy about all the extra attention you will get.’ This obviously didn’t set well with the company who had worked hard and played by the rules, so after asking nicely they have decided to sue the Liberal Party of Canada to force them to abide by trademark law.

The Liberals are effectively trying to steal the Green Shift’s (the company’s) identity. This is what Jennifer Wright had to say about the Liberals’ continued flaunting of the law:

“Our brand will become so diluted that it would be impossible for the Green Shift network to proudly grow under this name. Our success is dependent on building a name that people trust; we spent years earning this trust and building our trademark. If the Liberals continue to use our trademark for their carbon tax, it will render it virtually meaningless to our company, to our program and to everyone who participates in the real Green Shift program.

They will literally strip our company and our program of its identity.

The Liberals virtually ignored our attempts to settle this dispute amicably. When first warned of the planned hijacking, we immediately told them that we objected and would do our utmost to protect our rights. Nonetheless, we woke the following morning to find our name on their tax plan and splattered in papers and broadcasts from coast to coast. We followed up with a formal cease and desist notice, which also failed to elicit a response. Accordingly, we were left with no choice but to sue them.”

By all reports, Stéphane Dion continues to brush aside this company’s pleas for fairness. That makes him not only a bully, but a scorner of Canadian law as well! And to think that “Mr. Green” is doing this to a company that has a real track record of action on the environment!