Advocacy & Safety - Top Kyoto Minister Admits He Has Two SUVs

Another hypocrite from the enviroleftist front ...

OTTAWA (Reuters) - So what does Canada's natural resources minister drive when he's not pushing ratification of the Kyoto climate change protocol?

Minister Herb Dhaliwal confessed that, well, he has two Volvos and two sport utility vehicles -- General Motors 4x4s, to be precise. One pair for Ottawa and one pair for his home in Vancouver.

He was one of two cabinet members unveiling Canada's plans to implement the Kyoto climate change accord to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, which included calls to citizens to buy smaller fuel-efficient vehicles.

Story is here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&ncid=757&e=7&u=/nm/20021122/od_nm/suv_dc

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
More from the hypocritical enviroleftist front ...

The intro should rather have read "Another hypocrite on the enviroleftist front." Your statement implies that all enviroleftists (whatever that means) are hypocrites.

morsen, done.

Andy... Dhaliwal is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada. That means that he is a hypocrite by definition whatever his stand on environmental issues. The problem with the Liberals is that, as bad as they are, they're better than the alternatives [the NDP social workers on the left, the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Monster Raving Loonie Alliance on the right].

You have to understand that Dhaliwal is just a Liberal apparatchik. He has the Natural Resources portfolio not because of any skills or inclination in that area, but because he's a good party man. Besides, Natural Resources isn't exactly the greenest department in the Canadian government.

Oh... and Dhaliwal's politics are actually rather centre-right, as far as the Liberal Party goes...

He's for Kyoto. He has two SUVs. He's a hypocrite, no matter his party affiliation.

Let's purge the world of all hypocrites, watch the stock market crash and everyone thrown out of work.

Sounds like fun, to me!

Four cars? I guess his honorary Al Quaida membership card is in the mail.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
He's for Kyoto. He has two SUVs. He's a hypocrite, no matter his party affiliation.
For what it's worth, Dhaliwal is not personally for Kyoto, and has, in fcat, spoken out about it in the past. The government he represents is for Kyoto, however and he has to toe the line.

He is a hypocrite, but things are just a little more complex and nuanced that you might want them to be.

Originally posted by velocipedio

For what it's worth, Dhaliwal is not personally for Kyoto, and has, in fcat, spoken out about it in the past. The government he represents is for Kyoto, however and he has to toe the line.

He is a hypocrite, but things are just a little more complex and nuanced that you might want them to be.
I looked very hard for a reference to support your claim. I couldn't find it. I see Dhaliwal nibbles at the structure and framework of Kyoto (e.g., clean air credits) but can find nothing that suggests he "is not personally for Kyoto".

I've been around long enough to know the nuances of things, vel, don't worry.

He probably favours Kyoto, as long as HE is still able to squander petroleum, even if HIS subjects have to curtail their lifestyles.

I believe strongly that we lack only the social willpower and personal self-discipline, not the technology, to enable everyone to live a materially rich life much more energy and environmentally efficiently.

Originally posted by John E
...I believe strongly that we lack only the social willpower and personal self-discipline, not the technology, to enable everyone to live a materially rich life much more energy and environmentally efficiently.
Bingo John E, you win the prize!

And IMO, taking a spin on your bike for the sheer pleasure of it, is a good first step in that direction :)

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
morsen, done.
This is late, but thanks.

Andy, I don't have any citations on Dhaliwal at hand, and Ireally don't have the time to chase them down. My comments were based on my recollection of what I read and heard in the news during the last election.

The thing to keep in mind that, in a parliamentary system, a government minister is required to publicly support the government's policies, whatever his personal beliefs. What you see as "hypocrisy" could also be interpreted as a respect for party discipline.

Either way, of course, Dhaliwal would be tarred by the Brown Movement. If he toes the party line -- as he is required to in the Canadian system -- he is a hypocrite; if he expresses doubts about government policy, he is a traitor and a hypocrite. The poor man can't win.

Beside, he is not a "kyoto minister," he is Canada's minister of natural resources. The ministry responsible for Kyoto is actually environment.

Originally posted by velocipedio
What you see as "hypocrisy" could also be interpreted as a respect for party discipline.
...
Beside, he is not a "kyoto minister," he is Canada's minister of natural resources. The ministry responsible for Kyoto is actually environment.
Sounds like you have an issue with Reuters, then.

Again, in my research I saw Dhaliwal quibbling on the edges of the Kyoto implementation, but not coming out against it.

Thanks for feedback.

Originally posted by velocipedio

You have to understand that Dhaliwal is just a Liberal apparatchik. He has the Natural Resources portfolio not because of any skills or inclination in that area, but because he's a good party man. Besides, Natural Resources isn't exactly the greenest department in the Canadian government.



Well then, as the song goes, "he can't even run his own life, i'll be DAMNED if he'll run mine!!!"

The final solution for all these government hacks is to cut off their lifeblood....tax revenues! Thank god OUR guy, George Dubya Bush, is gonna do exactly that in our next congress.

roughstuff

He probably favours Kyoto, as long as HE is still able to squander petroleum, even if HIS subjects have to curtail their lifestyles.

i agree with John.

and further, although maybe not consistent, why should owning 4 un-fuel-economic cars be mutually exclusive from supporting Kyoto?
1) he could believe that car usage is quite fine but we need to better control the pollution or make it up in other areas
2) he could be for increasing the costs of private vehicle usage so while still supporting large polluting SUVS that the sum total decreases
3) he could believe that under Kyoto changes, the car makers would be more likely to offer less polluting options that would serve his personal needs (i.e. large size but with increased mileage and reduced pollution)

again... Kyoto is not about eliminating cars or even getting rid of all SUVS... it's merely about reducing our overall pollution (carbon) levels through a variety of small adjustments... i.e. increasing the AVERAGE fuel economy of vehicles, reducing total miles driven, changes in non-auto industries, etc...

as far as i know Kyoto doesn't say anything about HOW a country achieves the goals. thus, if they could meet the goals through other points, they could drive even larger and more polluting SUVs and still support Kyoto.

owning a polluting car and supporting Kyoto does not necessarily make the guy a hypocrite... admittedly it is also quite possible that he just wants OTHERS to reduce their pollution while he continues to drive his 4 vehicles and pollute a lot.

Originally posted by nathank
(A) i agree with John.
(B) ... and further, although maybe not consistent, why should owning 4 un-fuel-economic cars be mutually exclusive from supporting Kyoto?
On (A), you agree with John's point that a minister can impose governmental control over the "little people" while exempting himself?

On (B), well, it's a little like a vegetarian raising cattle for slaughter.

Originally posted by nathank
snip snip ... owning a polluting car and supporting Kyoto does not necessarily make the guy a hypocrite... admittedly it is also quite possible that he just wants OTHERS to reduce their pollution while he continues to drive his 4 vehicles and pollute a lot.

Doesn't this statement alone basically make him a hypocrite if it were true?

"...there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents..."

There will be more and more cars on roads, no matter what. The problem is deeper than it seemed.

A vision of fantasts, who wrote about a super computer, which takes power on earth, is coming true. But the earth is overtaken not by a computer, but by cars (some of them with computers inside though).

Those old systems of capitalism, communism, socialism are not actual anymore. The new vibrant system emerges. It is Motorism (for the lack of a better term). This system triumphs all over the world.

The characteristics of this system are:

- total dependency on a fossil combustion engine. A human with the body weight over 150 kg is incapable to live without a car anymore. It has a bond to a car stronger than a slave had to his master during slavery system in ancient times.

- quick mass spread of cars;

- death of cities as we knew them. Turning cities in giant garages and parking lots.

- fast noticeable decline of environment not only in urban areas, but in rural areas too.

- main political focus is on providing cheap fossil fuel.

- a place in the social hierarchy is defined by a driven car.

I do not think that any present government or governments may reduce the triumph of Motorism, because they are Motorism. All those Kyoto talk is a smoke screen.

I think a new broad social movement is to appear. Something like it was in 60s.

I see already the first signs of it. For example, in the city where I live cars started to use the trail, reserved for runners and cyclists, as a shortcut road, because the city roads are jammed.

It seems there was no way to oppose those cars and drivers, who despite the forbidding signs, drive on the trail.

The shlackbaums were broken and road police did not want to interfere with SUVs and other expensive cars, which could afford to brake the rules.

But some clever man or a woman thought of a measure, which helps to reduce trail violation. A dry tree, which is pulled on a trail, makes a motorist stop, come out and remove it aside. A cyclist or a runner are not influenced much by such a tree.

Even a relatively small dry branch makes a car to slow down, as it may scratch the costly paint.

When there are many trees and branches on the trail, it becomes inconvenient for cars. Large and medium stones work also.

Do not get me wrong. I do not suggest those trees. I am describing what is done by people (during dusk). And it works.

i read somewere ,i think on the net , that people who use these gas gusseling overpowered recreation vech. are unwittingly funding terrorism, by putting more money into the coffers of arab states that assist and fund terrorists ??

True, this has been documented for many years. A few reading suggestions--"The Prize" by Daniel Yergin, "The Seven Sisters," by Anthony Sampson, and (I forget the author) "The American House of Saud" about Saudi royal family lobbying with the US Congress. Read far enough and you'll figure out that excessive driving is highly treasonous.