Harper vs. The Warming World

Thu, 2008-09-11 01:29Mitchell Anderson
Mitchell Anderson's picture

Harper vs. The Warming World

Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed off his strong leadership this week by refusing to follow other party leaders in offsetting the carbon emissions from his campaign air travel.

Why should he? Mr. Harper has always been completely disdainful of “so-called ” green house gases. He shouldn’t have to kowtow to such politically correct posturing by his opponents by even feigning to care about global warming.

He has never allowed himself to be bullied by those eggheads at the IPCC , whose latest synthesis report was summed up by the New York Times : “that reductions in greenhouse gasses had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster”

What does the largest peer-review exercise in the history of science have to tell someone like Harper, who instead relies on good old fashion common sense?

As Harper pointed out in a fundraising letter , this “controversial theory ” of climate change is based on “tentative and contradictory scientific evidence” and focuses on carbon dioxide, which is “essential to life.”

He went on to point out the Kyoto Accord is “essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations”.

That’s the kind of courageous talk we want from our Prime Minister, and we should be proud that he represents Canada to the world. Not since the days of Pierre Trudeau has a Canadian leader make such a splash on the world stage.

According to the Canadian Press at the Kampala climate negotiations last year, “some foreign diplomats were so disgusted that they sought out Canadian journalists to tell them what their country was doing behind closed doors…One called the Harper approach a perfect recipe for making sure nothing happens.”

But who cares what the world thinks of Canada? Certainly not a strong leader like Harper.  He had the guts to cause German Chancellor Angela Merkel to fume that, “Of course we are not happy at this point that Canada has abandoned Kyoto's goals.”

Nor has he has ever pandered to special interests like the David Suzuki who said, “Stephen Harper not only opposes Kyoto, but he refutes the science. He’s back in the dinosaur era. Harper is just totally out of it.”

And it’s not just Suzuki. These “special interests” are increasingly the Canadian public. A poll last year found that Canadians were more concerned about climate change than any other developed country except France. Two thirds of Canadians felt that climate change was a “very serious problem”.

Another poll released just this summer showed that even after ballooning energy costs, Canadians are still demanding action from the politicians on climate change. It takes a strong leader like Harper to completely ignore the know-nothings in the scientific community, our trading partners, or the voting public.

As far as the carbon offsets for his plane, Harper should be commended burning as much jet fuel as he can.  After all he is only supporting our oil and gas industry. He showed his loyalty for the oil patch by flying from Ottawa to Quebec City to Vancouver - all in one day!

Now that’s leadership.


Previous Comments

Harper is getting a majority next week and everybody knows it. Canadians are not seriously concerned about AGW no matter what surveys may indicate. If AGW was a serious worry to anybody beyond the fringes, Harper would be out of a job. It’s not gonna happen. You can ridicule the guy but he knows what most people really want and what they want is money in their pockets and gas in their tanks. That’s who the Canadian people are and what they want. Those surveys that say people think it’s a serious problem are just getting somebodies empty words. Because Canadians also want to appear polite.

Keep saying that. When Canadians think the Conservatives might get a majority, their support for the Conservatives drops. Not so dumb after all.

“David Suzuki who said, “Stephen Harper not only opposes Kyoto, but he refutes the science. ”

The Fruit Fly Scientist is half right here.

Stephen Harper does oppose Kyoto; as do most intellegent people around the world.
He does not refute any actual science however since Kyoto is was and ever shall be about Politics.

I am hopeful about the election. Harper would not commit Kyotocide as Dion and Lawton would.

“[Harper] does not refute any actual science…”

I assume that by ‘refute’ you mean ‘oppose’, given your context.

Did you bother to click the first links here? He disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something understood for over a century and testable in any lab for pocket change. (If, as I suspect you’ll claim, he accepted it as a GHG but thought GHGs weren’t the problem, he wouldn’t have used ‘so-called’.)

Also, for the record, it’s “Layton”. I know, you have a history of poor typing skill, but Y and W aren’t even on the same half of the keyboard.

Before you brand me, note that I oppose Kyoto. I supported it in theory going into the conference, but as soon as I saw Canada abandon its predetermined limits to an unrealistic level in an attempt to one-up the obviously inflated American stated goals, I knew it wouldn’t be effective here.
(However: http://tinyurl.com/6k838b)

Do the Liberals realize that spending money on carbon offsets will be included in the election spending laws? It will. So they will be spending money on carbon offsets which will eat into their spending for the election. Exactly what will happen with the general public with their carbon tax.

There is no way of reducing CO2 emissions in Canada very much if any.

The biggest item that will impead any effort to reduce CO2 is immigration. Canada has 250,000 new people each year come to Canada. Liberals want to increase that to as much as 800,000 a year.

These people buy homes to heat, need food, need to send their kids to schools, drive cars. Thus any little bit of conservation by others to reduce their CO2 will get swamped by new immigrants increasing the need to use energy.

Example, near Sarnia they are building a 1000 acre solar farm. It is expected to produce enough power for 7000 homes. That’s 52 days of immigrants. That is, after 52 days there are so many new people in Canada that that solar farm will have been swamped.

In fact, one can make the claim that Canada, through its immigration policy is encouraging CO2 emissions because these people generally come from low carbon footprint countries to enjoy our high energy consumptive lifestyle.

Thus trying to curb CO2 emissions is like the little dutch boy with his finger in the dike.

JR,

You apparently missed the point of that Dutch Boy story.

The kid stuck his finger in the dike and saved his town. He made small, timely, personal sacrifice - he plugged the leak while he could still do so conveniently - and saved his community from devastation, from death and destruction and incalculable expense. So yes, “trying to curb CO2 emissions is (EXACTLY)  like the little dutch boy with his finger in the dike.”

As for your main point - about the apparent CO2 hazard of immigration - I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say:

Should we tell the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, that they should go to hell because their ambition to improve themselves will create an inconvenience for our carbon budgeting?

Shall we tell the people who are retiring in the next 20 years that they can forget ever collecting their pensions because we have canceled the (immigration) program to keep the Canadian workforce supplied?

By your math, we could entirely balance the effect of ALL immigration by building six more solar farms. As Canada has more than 40 million acres of land (much of it NOT part of Toronto), this might be entirely possible. And, actually, once we got started, we might find that the technology improved and that we could generate even more power while using up less space. Or we could put solar panels on rooftops and not “use up” any space whatever.

If, in fact, we plucked our national finger from where it has been stuck for the last 20 years and started poking around for a likely dike, we might actually make a little headway. We might no longer be an international embarrassment. We might stumble upon technological advances that other countries also need, creating new industries and wealth.

Or not. That all looks difficult. Better to try to ignore/deny the problem and give any extra money to Ford, so they can invest it in truck motors. Oh, and slam the door on immigration just on principle.

Is THAT your plan?

Solar Farms seem like a good idea. Hopefully solar improves to the point where it can compete with coal soon. It will in time. Once that happens, solar will take over and no one will have to push it. I can also see electric cars gradually coming along, efficient rail replacing trucks and geothermal taking over heating and cooling along with a reduced need for fossil fuels, but all this is going to take a long time. Canada’s CO2 output is going up and staying up for decades to come. I can imagine a solar society in maybe 150 years.

Wow, what a pipe dream. Keep at it as that’s all it is. Rail cannot replace trucks. Their infrastructure for one can’t handle the volume. Estimates I’ve seen is that to replace trucks would require a ten fold increase in railways. Second, the network is not difuse enough. Massive track laying would need to be done (at $1M per kilometer). Lastly electric railways don’t work well in Canada, they suffer from severe problems in the winter, that’s why we don’t have them today.

You still have a major problem with solar. What do you do at night and on prolonged cloudy days. Last winter we had continuous cloudy days from the end of Nov until the first week of Jan. Plus, get a good snow fall and your panels are covered.

Don’t count on there being a civil modern society in 150 years, peak oil is not going to be a pleasent turn.

ok - how bout 300 years? how about massive nuclear added in in the mean time? Energy in the future is nothing but a bunch of questions now but ultimately Planet earth has to run on solar, geothermal, wind etc. I mean after the wars, starvation, depopulation and so on.

Sure, those items (not nuclear) will help some people then, should any still be workable. (people will likely be mining crumbling abandoned cities for raw materials too) But there is no way they will keep this society going as is. That’s the pipe dream.

I never said stop immigration, that’s your (mis)interpretation of my point. If any one should be talking of stopping immigration it should be the green/envronmentalists (in the 60’s it was a common thread of their message to include population control, back when we were at 3 billion, that has vanished for political reasons not ecological ones.)

More people use more energy period. More people give off more CO2 period. Any reduction of CO2 by industry or persons will be swamped by new people coming here. That is a fact that is never included in the message of CO2 reduction.

And you would need to build 7,000 acres of solar farms EACH YEAR to just keep up with immigration (the’ve been at this one for 3 years now, still not operational). Not physcically possible.

Solar will never replace coal generation in a country where in the winter daylight is only 1/3 of the time, and often has weeks of cloudiness. Not a chance.

But’s let’s look at the what the call for CO2 reductions actually means. It means a carbon footprint the same as the early 1700’s when people woke up to fozen homes, lighted their homes by candle, grew their own foods (nothing fresh for 9 months of the year), and life was very hard. That’s what an 80% reduction of 1990 levels in CO2 means. Not only is it physically impossible, attempts will reduce people’s livelyhood so much that it will spark a revolt. (it’s already started, as the economy is now more important than the environment).

I think (although I can’t speak for JR) he was not suggesting that immigrants should be turned away.
Rather, the government should turn it attention to more important things than trying to stop the production of harmless plant food.
It won’t work.
It will hurt.
It isn’t necessary.
It won’t affect the climate even if it cold be done.

The environment or the economy this election?

The Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper are already arguing that with a recession looming in North America, it simply isn’t the time to implement a carbon tax because it would kill the economy.

Unless, of course, it would save the economy.

And therein lies the rub. Harper is a 19th century man living in a 21st century world, and he doesn’t seem to realize that the dichotomy he is pushing is a verifiably false. It doesn’t have to be the economy or the environment. We don’t have to sacrifice one to save the other.

This is not a new theory. Even conservatives and market analysts can see the logic and wisdom if they take off their ideological blinders.

Take our neighbors to the south. Even dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republicans like Texas oil-man billionaire T. Boone Pickens — the horrible partisan behind the Swift Boat Campaign of 2004 — realize that it’s absolutely ridiculous for their fellow patriots to continue buying oil at $110 a barrel, and sending money to countries that are openly antagonistic to the American Way of Life. I did the math; the US will pay more than $700 billion annually to other nations if the price of oil rises to a $150 a barrel, which many analysts say is a foregone conclusion and likely to come sooner rather than later.

I did the ciphering for Canada, too. Let’s be kinder, and price oil at $110 a barrel for our exercise. Even though Canada imports less oil than the US, and even though we use less oil per capita than Americans, every year we still send $45.7 billion of our money to other countries.

Imagine how much better off we’d be be if that Canadian money stayed in Canada.

Imagine how much better off you’d be every year if you could cut your electrical bill by 25 percent, make your car miserly to the tune of 60 mpg, and heat your 3,000 square foot home — if you’re lucky to own such a large one — for less than $1,000 a year.

And that’s why I’ll do everything I can to ensure that Harper and the Conservatives are replaced in Canada in the next election. Every day, as an editor for environmental newsletters, I report on the billions of dollars being spent throughout the developed and developing world to promote renewable energy and energy independence, and every day I see Canada falling farther and farther behind.

If you are an environmentalist, there are plenty of reasons to vote Harper out. If you are a fiscal Conservative, there are plenty of reasons to vote Harper out.

________________________________________
Project ABC — Anything But Conservative http://www.anythingbutconservative.com

You are intermixing two different things that have two different socio-consequences and two different economic consequences.

You are mixing peak oil with AGW. They are very different in a number of aspects. T. Boone knows all about peak oil and that is where his message comes from. All of your concerns on price of oil comes from peak oil, not AGW.

Spending money on trying to solve AGW will hit the economy with the double whammy with peak oil. Example. Carbon tax schemes at the minumum need to be administered. That costs money. Cap and trade systems cost money (the only real winners are the brokers). Carbon sequestering will cost billions. Other measures imposed to stop CO2 emissions will require money (and energy which we have less of).

Economic growth, what drives the economy, is from wealth creation. Taxes, of any kind, is like a leach on the economy. It does not make new wealth, but is a drain instead.

If we spend billions on trying to “fix” AGW and discover later that it was all wrong, people are going to be quite upset when their money could have been used to cushion peak oil.

With this one can now see that the Liberals, NDP and the Greens are very wrong in their environmental message. The facts are the planet is not warming up, but has cooled since 1998, in spite of a 15% increase in CO2. Sea level rise has not accelerated as would have been expected. And the ice extent of Antarctic is the largest it’s been in 50 years. The Arctic seems to be returning to normal.

Don’t mix the two, they are quite different especially since AGW is false, and peak oil is true, and if not upon us now, very close to it.

I’m not confusing anything, JR.

I’m the poster formerly known as Smart Like Streetcar, and I know the issues far better than you. Every point you make in the global warming debate is easily and verifiably proven false.

But my point is that the policies for peak oil and global warming lead to a similar place in the end. And just this week, there was a paper from the CAP suggesting that every dollar supporting clean technologies creates 4 jobs for every dollar spent in the oil and gas industry.

Harper is leading us down the road to ruin.

________________________________________
Project ABC — Anything But Conservative http://www.anythingbutconservative.com

How can you possibly know what I know, so you do not know you know more than me. Typical dogmatist.

Which ones did I claim are false? Go for it, show they are false.

“there was a paper from the CAP suggesting that every dollar supporting clean technologies creates 4 jobs for every dollar spent in the oil and gas industry. ” Right, if you are gullible enough to believe that I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. But then again you are swallowing the Green Shaft hook line and sinker…

Since you are so smart then you should be able to answer these questions about the Green Shift:

1) if everyone is getting back in income tax more than they pay in carbon tax where is that money going to come from?

2) since the carbon tax increases the price of diesel fuel by 7c a liter, that’s going to increase the cost of everything that is transported (trucks and railways. Interesting Dion is making a deal with truckers but not the railways). That means the cost of everything will go up. Thus the Bank Of Canada is going to consider that a massive increase in inflation and raise interest rates. Thus everyone will pay more in interest payments.

3) if the plan is to move people from income tax to consumption tax, with the goal of curbing consumption, is that not going to drop the Federal Government’s revenue? Income tax revenue in the future is known so budgeting can be done, consumption tax revenue will continuously drop, so budgeting will be more difficult.

4) the second largest CO2 emitters is in concrete production. Since that is a chemical process, there is no way to curb CO2 caused by the making of concrete. Thus those companies will pay more in carbon taxes, and will be passing that costs down to everyone who uses concrete. Which includes…

5) Provincial governments and Municipal governments will pay more. Not only in the fuel tax, but also construction costs (roads, bridges, schools). Where are they going to get that money from? Increasing provincial income tax and increased property taxes.

Where in the Green Shift plan does it address these issues?

Canada imports oil? why? we export oil. Why would we import?

JR:
Richard L signs off with Project ABC.
He make absurd blanket statements like:
“Every point you make in the global warming debate is easily and verifiably proven false.”

Obviously he is a religeous zealot and is not at all capable of rational discussion on the topic.

The best you can hope for (as with creation evangilists) is to show others how wrong he is.

Keep projecting your own faults onto other people, JRW, and you’ll get to be almost as good at it as Gary is.

Down with the disastrous Harper government! Let them rot in oppostion in the back rows of Parliament!

JK and Gary:

I’ll be back to answer several of your questions specifically. I write for two publications that roughly follow the clean transportation industry and the carbon emission reduction industries, so I can answer several questions without breaking a sweat.

However, I’m busy trying to add several additional pages to Project ABC, so it may take a few days.

But I’ll give you guys a hint. The low-hanging fruit of the low-carbon economy is energy efficiency. Here’s but one example. Truckers travel thousands upon thousands of miles in the course of a year, and if they employ hybrid technology for trucks, they can realize a 20 to 40 percent improvement in fuel economy, depending upon whether they retrofit an existing truck (good), or buy a new one (better). With diesel currently at around $1.50 a liter, they can actually fully recoup their investment in 18 months to three years. And if the government provides grants to help them upgrade their trucks and their fleets, they can do it a whole hell of a lot faster than that.

So in one or two years, they might be paying an extra 10 or 12 percent on the price of fuel from a carbon tax, but enjoying a 20 to 40 percent improvement in fuel economy. And lo and behold, they’re actually emitting 15 to 30 percent less CO2. Everybody gets balloons!

This isn’t new stuff. Canada is not setting off into uncharted territory marked with an ominous “Here There Be Dragons.” Because of Liberal and Conservative delays, we’re very late to the game, implementing programs that have already been proven to work elsewhere. Countries that implemented carbon taxes a long time ago (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway all come to mind) and most European nations have very robust economies, and much lower emissions. California has very strict emissions standards for trucks, and 17 states are about to join them. (When the next US president is elected; both support the state’s right to set their own emissions laws).

We wouldn’t be going it alone. We’d be joining the rest of the developed world.

Some things will get a little more expensive. Some will get cheaper. Some nuts are tough to crack — JR mentioned a good one with concrete, which accounts for 5-7 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions — but there are three or four new technologies now being used (or about to come out of the lab) that can make concrete without emitting CO2, or cutting it drastically. (One, just off the top of my head, uses sea water to capture the CO2). I’m not saying we won’t have to make some lifestyle changes, but most won’t be difficult.

Carbon taxes boost ingenuity and the creative spirit. I’m surprised that you, Gary, and Rick have such a low opinion of humanity.
________________________________________
Project ABC — Anything But Conservative http://www.anythingbutconservative.com

I’m not saying the technology does not work. The problem with alternatives to FF is they either cannot be scaled up or cannot be scaled up in time.

Example, these hybrid diesel transport trucks. You admit that the carbon tax will be at least 7c/ltr in the first 4 years of a Liberal Government. Can the whole fleet of 850,000+ transport trucks be retrofitted in 4 years? Not a chance. Thus, your assertion that they will save even with the carbon tax is false. It will take DECADES to replace the fleet. In the mean time, those truckers who cannot retrofit will be paying more, which they will pass down to consumers.

The other issue is cost. With 850,000+ vehicles to retrofit, for each $1000 spent on retrofitting will cost $850M. Guaranteed these retrofits will cost thousands. Thus the cost could be $8.5BILLION. How much of that will the government hand out, and where will it come from?

The other issue with these diesel hybrids is the electrical component. Several nuke plants would have to be built now to supply the power for these hybrids. Since they take 10-15 years to build, there is a huge lag time. And with concrete going up in price due to the carbon tax, people will pay for that in their hydrobills.

And, speaking of concrete. Again, I’m not disputing the technology. But what is the cost going to be and who is going to ultimately pay for it?

JK:

I don’t have time to get into it with you today.

Let me ask you this… How is California managing to do everything I described above, with a population greater than Canada’s? California truckers are facing increasingly strict emission standards every year and yet they are managing the change. And 19 US states are following their lead — or they will, once the current administration is gone, and the EPA supports California emission standards.

How are so many states, with more than half the US population, managing to do what you say is clearly impossible.

You’re telling me it can’t be done. The evidence says that it can be. And guess what… It’s happening all through Europe, too.

One clarifying point that I should make… It’s not all about hybrids; Truckers can cut emissions and pay less at the pump by using compressed natural gas, liquid natural gas, and the like. And they can install filters and battery systems to their rigs so they can cut idling times (with a three to five percent fueling saving right there).

And, of course, companies can ship more by rail, and cut their emissions by 90 percent immediately. Ta da!

________________________________________
Project ABC — Anything But Conservative http://www.anythingbutconservative.com

How many of the 8.5 million transport trucks in the US have been converted to hybird?

As well, JK… since you don’t believe that global warming is real, you won’t find these studies interesting. Its the reason why conservatives around the world are fighting the good fight… because the cost of doing nothing will bankrupt us.

This is my summary of a study by the (obviously far-left) US Department of Transportation.

The US DOT has issued a stark report showing that climate change may well effect transportation along the Gulf Coast for 50 to 100 years. The study, the first of three parts, was produced to help local and state officials make decisions about transportation and infrastructure plans going forward, and cites many potential problems. For example, the study found that 27 percent of major roads, nine percent of rail lines and 74 percent of ports are at or below four feet of elevation, making them very vulnerable to expected flooding as the sea levels rise - and the land sinks. The area studied consisted of 48 contiguous states from Mobile, Alabama to Galveston, Texas. (Source: Trucking Info, March 20, 2008).

And here’s another story about Illinois, again, from the far left Center for Integrative Environmental Research. My summary:

Everyone is worried about the financial costs of climate change, but as some like Lord Nicholas Stern are quick to point out, the cost of not acting will be astronomical. That’s also the conclusion of a University of Maryland study that looks at the bottom line for Illinois: If climate change continues at its current pace, the cost to Illinois for flood abatement, water treatment, shipping, farming, and related goods and services will amount to $43 billion annually.

“We have in the U.S. perceived the issue from one side - what it would cost us to do something about climate change,” said Matthias Ruth, who coordinated the research at Maryland’s Center for Integrative Environmental Research. The new study, he said, calculates the costs of inaction, and concludes that the bill will open a few eyes. It’s pretty clear every sector of the economy is affected directly - agriculture, shipping, infrastructure - or indirectly because of goods and services that rely on them,” Ruth said. “Every sector of the economy, every state’s economy, will be affected.” Illinois, for instance, can expect more summer heat spells, less winter snow cover and more evaporation of Great Lakes water. The state would also see a greater number of destructive storms, increased flooding, heightened erosion, and droughts that increase the need for widespread irrigation.

________________________________________
Project ABC — Anything But Conservative http://www.anythingbutconservative.com

As well, JK[It’s JRW] since you don’t believe that global warming is real, you won’t find these studies interesting. Its the reason why conservatives around the world are fighting the good fight… because the cost of doing nothing will bankrupt us.

Show me peer reviewed references to back that claim up.

The US DOT has issued a stark report showing that climate change may well effect transportation along the Gulf Coast for 50 to 100 years. The study, the first of three parts, was produced to help local and state officials make decisions about transportation and infrastructure plans going forward, and cites many potential problems. For example, the study found that 27 percent of major roads, nine percent of rail lines and 74 percent of ports are at or below four feet of elevation, making them very vulnerable to expected flooding as the sea levels rise - and the land sinks. The area studied consisted of 48 contiguous states from Mobile, Alabama to Galveston, Texas. (Source: Trucking Info, March 20, 2008).

Sea level rise from what cause? AGW? Nope, can’t be. Sea level rise has been flat for the past 110 years at 1.7mm/yr with decadal fluctuations. There is no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. Thus the current rise cannot be from AGW.

According to this Galviston is sinking http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8771510 that’s surely cannot be from AGW. Thus using this report as a claim that AGW is causing economic hardship is not only emperically false, it is dishonest.

Everyone is worried about the financial costs of climate change, but as some like Lord Nicholas Stern are quick to point out, the cost of not acting will be astronomical. That’s also the conclusion of a University of Maryland study that looks at the bottom line for Illinois: If climate change continues at its current pace, the cost to Illinois for flood abatement, water treatment, shipping, farming, and related goods and services will amount to $43 billion annually.

Show me peer reviewed science papers that AGW is the cause of this.

Illinois, for instance, can expect more summer heat spells, less winter snow cover and more evaporation of Great Lakes water. The state would also see a greater number of destructive storms, increased flooding, heightened erosion, and droughts that increase the need for widespread irrigation.

Show me peer reviewed science papers to back this claim up. These faith based ascertions do not prove AGW is real. Only that lay people THINK it’s real. Do you even realize that warmer weather will make for FEWER storms, not more. Violent storms in North America are caused when warm moist Gulf air masses meet dry cold Arctic air masses. If the Arctic is warming, then there will be fewer cold fronts moving south, thus fewer, less intense storms. However, the over all trend in the US is stable storm numbers and intensities over the past 100 years. And yes, I have peer reviewed papers to back that up. Visit www.co2science.org and www.worldclimatereport.com both sites review peer reviewed papers.

Besides, check the actual data on temperatures in the US. There is no over all warming trend. Again, provide peer reviewed papers to back up these faith based predictions.

Here are some recent articles in the EU showing things are not so rosy after all. I have hundreds of such articles archived.

EUROPE FACES ANNUAL BILL OF €60 BILLION TOFIGHTCLIMATE CHANGE
Tony Barber, Financial Times, 4 September 2008

RATTLED GERMANY TO BUILD NEW COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS IN FACE OF RUSSIA’S ENERGY STRANGLEHOLD
Red Orbit, 29 August 2008

COAL MAY PLAY MAJOR ROLE AGAIN IN BRITAIN’S ENERGY MIX
Mark Milner, The Guardian, 29 August 2008

AS ENERGY CRISIS LOOMS, EU LAWMAKERS MULL REVERSING CLIMATE POLICY
Pete Harrison, Reuters, 28 August 2008

NO MORE CHEAP ENERGY, BRITISH MINISTER WARNS
Andrew Porter, The Daily Telegraph, 28 August 2008

BRITAIN PAYS £20 BILLION TOO MUCH IN GREEN TAXES
The TaxPayers Alliance, 27 August 2008

BRITISH HOUSEHOLDS PAYING £800 TOO MUCH IN GREEN TAXES, SAYS REPORT
James Kirkup, The Daily Telegraph, 28 August 2008

FIVE MILLION BRITONS FACE MORE GAS AND ELECTRICITY PRICE HIKES
Daily Mail, 21 August 2008

POLAND WANTS TO BLOCK EU’S EMISSIONS TRADING
Business Week, 7 August 2008

GORDON BROWN’S WORST NIGHTMARE: LABOUR IN FREEFALL
Philip Webster, The Times, 25 July 2008

DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE IN BRITAIN: LABOUR FACES BEING KICKED OUT OF OFFICE
Ray Massey, Daily Mail, 24 July 2008

DAMAGE LIMITATION: BRITISH GOVERNMENT TRIES TO WATER DOWN GREEN ENERGY LAWS
David Adam, The Guardian, 24 July 2008

EMISSIONS TRADING BECOMES A GLOBAL LAUGHING STOCK
Keith Johnson, WSJ Environmental Capital, 23 July 2008

THE EU’S CARBON TRADING SCHEME: KILLING JOBS TO SAVE THE CLIMATE
Karsten Stumm, Spiegel Online, 17 July 2008

EU CLIMATE POLICY THREATENS TO CRIPPLE AIRLINE INDUSTRY
The Gazette, 17 July 2008

AIRLINES CALL FOR ABANDONING OF CLIMATE TAXES
Business Standard, 17 July 2008

just a few, have many many more.

Oh… one last point. Honestly, and without reservation, I can thank guys like Gary, JR, and Rick for posting so often, and with such a wanton disregard for scientific truth.

You guys were the motivation behind Project ABC. And I couldn’t have done it without you!

So thanks. I’m getting great feedback.

And thanks to all the smart, sensible, well-informed people that I’ve met here. Together, we are mighty!

________________________________________
Project ABC — Anything But Conservative http://www.anythingbutconservative.com

uh - your welcome I guess - anyway isn’t it a little late for this abc thing. I mean Harper is winning this election hands down, liberals are probably losing ground and the green party probably won’t get a seat. maybe you’re just getting started early for the next election or something, but for this time “anything but conservatives” is a lost battle.

Liberals lose more than 30 seats. Conservative majority. Dion gone by XMas (if he does not resign the day after the election, the knives in the back will send him packing real fast) and this is the last we hear of a carbon tax. If the Liberals screw this election up over the carbon tax, never again will any party dare to bring it up again. Plutonium. Well, maybe the Greens will, but then again… who cares.

Good Luck with that! Gary

Thanks to Richard L for pushing me to form the new national project ABL.

Anywhichway but LEFT:

We will be fighting the ugly scourge of socialism where ever we find it.

:)

Now I just need a monkey to play the Liberal role……..

Actually this is really great to watch. 3 parties fighting over the left vote. Keep it up people this is great! I really like the ABC campaign. Guarrenteed to give us a Conservative majority. No one will know which of the any by conservative to vote for, so the voting will be all over the map, allowing Harper to slide right between. Love it!

Is the Liberals Carbon Tax really revenue neutral? As with all plans, the devil is in the details, so let’s have a look.

According to their calculator at www.thegreenshift.ca a single mom with 2 children earning $30,000 a year will get some .$1,620 back in income tax cuts. If this family were living in an apartment they would not be paying any heating or electrical costs, as it would be part of their rent (rent control exists by municipal law, so apartment owners cannot pass on this carbon tax on their utility costs by increasing rents). If she takes the bus to work, she would also have no carbon footprint she can adjust. Thus, she will not get hit at all with the carbon tax (save the increase in food and other items she buys), yet she gets a healthy tax return.

Thus someone somewhere must be paying for that. Let’s see who.

A truck driver who earns $50,000 a year with a stay at home mom and 2 kids will get $827 back (if both worked for $25K each they would have gotten $1,210 back, hardly fair). But because he has a rig to drive he will get nailed with the 7c/ltr carbon tax on his fuel use, wiping out his tax cut. Then he has to pay the carbon tax on his home heating, electrical bill and everything he buys. Thus this person, categorized as lower middle class, will get nailed to help the single mom above get more back. He can’t cut back on his diesel fuel, he has to work. He has to heat his home in the winter, thus there is very little, if any, wiggle room for energy savings for this person.

Let’s expand this more. Two professional people living together, such as teachers, each earning $80,000. Kids all grown up and gone from the nest. They own a nice large home with a pool and hot tub. They vacation each year by plane. They get $1,275 back (if they had 4 kids at home and lived in a northern rural area it’s $3,136) , more than the poor truck driver. They can afford the carbon tax then, can’t they. They will in no way have any incentive to reduce their CO2 emissions.

My mother-in-law owns a century home in the Beaches of Toronto. It’s brick masonry with no insulation in the walls at all. She has replaced the windows with better quality and improved the insulation in the attic. But short of a complete home gutting she cannot insulate the walls. The cost to do this would be at least $50,000 and take 3 to 4 months to complete, of which she would be unable to live in the home. Not only would this be a huge burden financially but it would produce tones of garbage which would be trucked to Michigan. Thus she is going to get nailed with the carbon tax on home heating and will have no recourse at all to retrofit the house to save money. She would, by the way, get only $175 back in taxes. Nowhere near what she will pay out in this carbon tax. Nice the Liberals hit pensioners this way.

Finally, my own sitation. We retrofitted the home a couple years ago. All new windows, new doors and doubling of the attic insulation. Short of removing the brick veneer and adding 4 inches of foam board, there is little else I can do. Thus it will be too late for me to get any grants/loans. My wife and I get some $917 back. Whether this will offset our Carbon tax is not calculable with so many unknowns. The point is, people like me cannot alter our carbon footprint because we have already done measures to curb our energy use. Hence the carbon tax for people like us is an increased cost.

What I find also highly unfair is that the tax rebate is dependant upon the number of people in the home. The more kids you have the more you get back. Yet a family of 2 in a home will use the same amount of home heating energy as a family of ten in the same home. How can that be fair?

Bottom line is everyone cannot be a winner. Someone has to pay for those who get more back. Clearly from this it’s the middle class who will have their carbon tax transferred to the poor. And none of it reduces any CO2 emissions by any of these people.

hmm as a rental apartment manager, as I am, I might come out ahead with this scheme. My income is low and my expenses are very low, so I assume I would get a nice tax return.

Then I could take that cash and buy myself a smoky old pick up truck to haul junk …. or a flight to some hot spot ….or I could just buy twice as much gas for the Corolla and go on aimless Sunday drives to nowhere in particular.

yep - this carbon scheme has some holes in it.

“According to NASA, 168 billion metric tons (BMT) of CO2 are added to the atmosphere annually. 100 BMT are released by the oceans; 30 BMT, by decaying biomass and another 30 BMT from animal respiration. Humans account for only 8 BMT. Forrest fires contribute 1 BMT, industrial activity (baking, metal production, wine making and others) add 1 BMT. The remaining 6 BMT are due to burning fossil fuel. If we immediately ceased using all fossil fuels, we could only cut CO2 increases by 3.58%.”

I just copied this off some blog comment thread…. but assuming the figures are accurate, then efforts to reduce CO2 emissions would seem to be a ridiculous endeavor, no?

Very interesting reading. This is not the Dion tax at all, completely different. http://www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/eco-taxation.htm

The Swedes don’t need policies to impose taxes.
They simply dictate the opinions of the collective and the borg move en mass toward the payment booths.

The latest spending bill, going for about $410 billion, isn’t any exception. Republicans have vilified the bill as being laden with earmarks, a spending practice Obama himself had criticized. This raft of easy loans to pet projects was cobbled together before the election, which is why he’s already signed it. The earmarks are something that Obama pledges has a limited shelf life. After this spending bill passes, he’s going to tighten the spending belt.

In today’s era, poverty and famine seems to be a common cause of deprivation but you can make a difference. Everyone is so busy with their work, careers, study, business and others. Transportation is a great requirement of modern living.  However, just because you need it doesn’t mean you have to let GM or any one else’s marketing department tells you how to do it. If you let them tell you how to do everything, you will need cash advance loans just to be able to get to work every day.  For instance, you could carpool.  Lots of people do it and have done so for a long time.  Also, if you live close enough to work, you can start riding a bike.  No gas and you get in better shape.  (Win – win.)  There’s also public transport, and all of these are cheaper modes of transportation

[x]
Canada Revenue Agency

A new report from the Broadbent Institute raises fresh questions about whether Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audits are being used as a politicized tool to pressure critics of the federal government. 

The report, Stephen Harper’s CRA: Selective audits, “political” activity, and right-leaning charities, says several right-leaning charities are...

read more