How bad would it be if PMSH actually had a majority?

In a word … BAD. I doubt he would even utter the phrase “Climate Change.”

PMSH is looking for less rigid climate change agreement.

Hmmm.

So if actually cutting emissions is rigid, then less rigid would mean ….. ?

Ok, I’m normally a very civil guy, even when talking to people with whom I strongly disagree. I actually know some Conservative Party supporters who I get on with quite well, despite not understanding their politics.

But I’m about done. I’ve had enough. This is our children’s future we’re talking about here and I’m sick of these people making excuses about why the right thing can’t be done because we might have to give up a wee bit of our cushy lifestyle.

If I haven’t said it before, my stance on climate change only comes down to one question. Are you willing to force your children and grandchildren to live with the consequences of doing nothing about our emissions and continuing our consumer lifestyle?

If the answer to that question is a big fat NO, then I no longer want to talk about why emission cuts are not possible. That discussion is over. If our grandparents generation had said, “We can’t land at Normandy, those Germans might not welcome us with open arms,” we would all be living in the Third Reich right now.

Instead I want to talk about how fast can we make it happen? We are in such bad shape and have so much room for improvement that the discussion of how much to cut can wait. We have years of work just getting through the low hanging fruit.

As for the “do nothing except erect smoke screens so we can fool the suckers into giving us a majority” policies of Stephen Harper and crew?

Come on, Steve, give us your damn throne speech! It’s time for an election!

(Feeling a bit stressed, Glenn? Yes actually, I was, thanks for asking!)