Harper's Climate Carbon Tax Snowjob

Thu, 2008-09-18 00:40Mitchell Anderson
Mitchell Anderson's picture

Harper's Climate Carbon Tax Snowjob

Mr. Harper’s credibility on the climate file hit a new low recently when he claimed with a straight face that the Liberal’s proposed carbon tax would “wreck” the economy.

Perhaps the Prime Minster should look at some of the other economies around the world that are apparently doing well in spite of being saddled with such a radical and un-tested policy..

The Swedes clearly don’t appreciate that their economy is in peril due to the carbon tax that they brought in seventeen years ago. Admittedly, it is a dog eat dog world and perhaps Mr. Harper is hoping that Sweden will unwittingly sabotage their economy with this reckless policy that has resulted in them being ranked #4 in the world in competitiveness.

Strangely, this un-tried experiment has also reduced their carbon emissions by 9% below 1990 levels, while their economy grew by 44%.

Since we are part of the Commonwealth, it might be courteous if Harper passed his unique insights on to the United Kingdom. They probably don't know that their economy is going down the tubes due to a carbon tax they introduced in 1993. This rash adventure has lowered their per capita carbon emissions to less than half of Canada’s.

Likewise, The Netherlands, Norway and Finland are apparently in danger of economic collapse due their taxes on carbon that were brought in over ten years ago. All have per capita carbon emissions far below Canada.

The simple fact is that carbon taxes have successfully been implemented all around the world and have consistently reduced emissions while stimulating a shift away from the carbon economy. Meanwhile here in Canada, we are spewing out more climate altering-carbon per person than almost any country on Earth.

It is not that Canadians don’t want to pitch in on this planetary emergency. A poll from last year showed that two thirds of Canadians believed that climate change was a “very serious ” problem – a level of concern second only to France.

Canadians have also not been moved from this opinion by rising fuel prices. A poll from only two months ago shows that Canadians are still demanding aggressive action on climate change – even after being hit by ballooning energy prices.

Our Prime Minster is simply out of touch with the core Canadian value of respecting the environment. Harper’s fear mongering around a carbon tax is the latest in a long record of disgraceful inaction on dealing with the most pressing environmental problem, climate change.

While the rest of the world is discouraging carbon consumption by sensibly raising the price of dumping climate altering chemicals into the atmosphere, Harper is making it even cheaper. This month he proposed to slash excise taxes on diesel fuel. Burn, baby, burn.

Then of course there is the well-established costs of doing nothing on climate change. Nicholas Stern , the former Chief Economist of the World Bank reported that unmitigated climate change could cost the world economy 20% of global GDP. Lord Stern warned:

“Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century”


Progressive countries the world over must be shaking their heads wondering what happened to Canada’s hard-won reputation of being on the right side of history.

The world is moving to solve this critical issue yet Canada remains a big part of the problem - and that problem is Stephen Harper.

Previous Comments

The polls about Canadian concerns must be wrong. If those polls are right, Harper will get thrown out and the Liberals will get a majority. But everybody knows that’s not on. Harper is probably getting a majority and absolutely no one would predict a Liberal win.

Rick, you’re saying that the outcome of an election is indicative of Canadian values, while ignoring a critical part of our election process: the campaign. The whole strategy behind the current Conservative campaign is to pitch Harper as an everyday joe and make Dion look expensive. I don’t know much about Harper personally (I’ve seen him speak publicly in person once, and that was it), so I can’t speak about the first point, but the second is an outright fabrication. The point behind this post was to look at the price. If Harper can make Dion look too expensive and/or ineffectual, while making himself look like a choice for action, then he wins votes even if he doesn’t take action on climate, no matter what voters think.

To the point of this post, though, Page is right: Carbon taxes are *not* economy-crippling. You don’t even have to give up your gas guzzler – the Swedes still drive them (see Page’s link on that). Unprecedented economic growth while experiencing carbon emission reductions far ahead of what came out of the Kyoto agreement (which I’m critical of, by the way). How, exactly, is this not effective?

I live in Alberta. There’s a bumper sticker here dating from several years ago: “Dear Lord, please give us another oil boom, I promise not to piss it away this time”. When the oil boom came, there was talk from progressives in the Alberta legislature of using it for long-term investment. (Since the provincial Tories consistently underestimated the price of oil, they always posted huge surpluses; the call was for investment of those surpluses in the Heritage Fund, which after a short time would be producing interest in an amount similar to oil revenues during boom, but protected against bust). The Conservatives, for no apparent reason (hint: Lobbyists), opposed this, despite it basically meaning continued Albertan prosperity and independence from oil price fluctuation. It would also have meant we would be protected from any carbon legislation that will be introduced – meaning the provincial Albertan Conservatives, many of whom were voted for by the same voter base that keeps Harper in power, basically made sure that any upcoming carbon legislation would be more painful than it needed to be, and tied Alberta’s economy even tighter to its depletable natural resources, meaning any such legislation would stir up the Albertans’ memories of the NEP. Now Harper’s on the national stage essentially painting the Green Shift as an eastern tax grab, and voila! Regardless of the empirically-observed economic growth resulting from carbon taxation, and the people’s opinions on climate change, he scores a pile of votes due to his political cousins’ lack of foresight and Albertan grudges.

The lack of economic wisdom in favor of political cunning here is staggering. I’m not sure whether I should be surprised that you’d miss it.

Ok - well it it’s true that carbon tax = prosperity , then the Liberals seem to have failed in getting that message through.

You won’t find me disagreeing.

thanks for the subtle put down as well - typical elitist stuff. Yes political parties ALL use cunning and half truths. Politics is a game unfortunately. Dion is adjusting his game too as you can see at the other end of this thread.

No dude, enviro politicians are not better than the rest of them. They’re all cut from the same elitist cloth.

You do realize that business in Sweden complained big time about the carbon tax, and many sectors of the economy were exempt from it because the cost trickling down to consumers would be prohibative.

And yet, despite all the bitching (some of which came from the fossil fuel industry, natch), they innovated and adapted, emissions dropped, and the economy grew.

This is pretty much the definition of what a price on carbon was expected to do, by the way. Your point is?

The point is the Swedish government caved in to the big emitters to exempt them from the carbon tax becuase those big emitters would have passed it down to the public. Thus it’s a carbon tax in name only. If the real goal was to reduce CO2, because the planet is heading to an environmental crisis, then nothing should be exempt, right? So why does Dion exempt gasoline?

The truth comes out:

The Emperor’s new carbon tax – naked and ineffective

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=be253f5e-0b50-4fb8-aa43-8785871078c7&p=1

Norway’s taxes led to a 43 per cent increase in emissions. Sweden showed a nine per cent reduction in carbon emissions – but its heavy manufacturers continue to pump out greenhouse gasses at will, because Sweden only taxes consumers.

Denmark’s emissions fell 15 per cent from 1990 to 2005, largely because it has embraced wind power and eliminated 25 per cent of its manufacturing jobs.

In England, a host of environmental taxes and charges mean that the average British motorist now pays nearly $2,000 in fuel taxes per year. Energy costs have risen by 20 per cent and it is estimated that British businesses now pay an estimated $45 billion annually in green fees and taxes.

While he is a great guy, Sir Nicholas Stern is not a ‘Lord.’ He is a Knight.

is a knight, but he was also granted a lifetime peerage in 2007, and sits in the House of Lords.

True.

From his Wikipedia entry:

“On 18 October 2007, it was announced that Stern would receive a life peerage and was to be made a non-party political peer (i.e would sit as a cross-bencher in the House of Lords).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Stern

I apologize for my error above. I was just very used to seeign him called ‘Sir Nicholas Stern.’

“Sir Nicholas” is correct. The family name is never used when beginning with “Sir”.

Nicholas may be a knight or a lord or any number of things, but only one title is relevent.
He is an activist.
As such, his rediculus report is at the very least suspect.

But the Green SHAFT is the topic. Harper understands it.
Dion, as a typical acedemic, has no grasp of reality.

Weather or not it destroys the economy is really not the point.
The point is that it will hurt and it is not necessary for any reason.
It will have NO effect on the climate.
It will only affect your wallet and the governments surplusses.

Typical Liberal Leftist thinking.
Invent a crisis.
Invent a tax to solve it.
Remove a few more freedoms while you are at it.

ABL - Anywhichway but left

Are you as quick to deliberately and crudely strip the proper title from Viscount Monckton, also a peer (but NOT a member of the House of Lords), and a far more vocal activist (for inaction), or is there another double standard here because he shares your underabundance of schooling?

Brian,
I get your point. I have used the same argumet many many time on this blog alone.
AGW activists do it all the time.

However, I am unable to see in my comment where I stripped any tittle from anyone.
I added one in fact.

Good try though. Because the practice of applying double standards is THE standard on most blogs from both sides of the debate.

In a perfect world we could just talk about the facts.

this blog is not about facts. It’s about criticizing skeptics.

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.

“They probably don’t know that their economy is going down the tubes due to a carbon tax they introduced in 1993. ”

It is. Post your references to the contrary. I have LOTS that show the UK carbon tax is killing the middle class, driving companies to flee to other countries, and is about the kill the Labour Party from power. Oh, and the UK is in a resession now.

“This rash adventure has lowered their per capita carbon emissions to less than half of Canada’s. ”

Provide evidence of this. The reports I have seen are that the UK’s emissions continue to climb. They are looking at coal again for electrical generation to meet the growing demand.

“Canadians have also not been moved from this opinion by rising fuel prices. A poll from only two months ago shows that Canadians are still demanding aggressive action on climate change – even after being hit by ballooning energy prices.”

Way out of date now. Polls now show the Environment is 3rd on the priority list. The economy is #1 by a HUGE margin.

“The world is moving to solve this critical issue yet Canada remains a big part of the problem - and that problem is Stephen Harper. ”

That is just plain false. The world is not “moving to solve this critical issue”. China is not and they represent 1/6 of the population. Their emissions now equil the US and rising at some 10-15% per year. India doesn’t and they have 1/6 of the population. Kyoto only affect the world’s richest countries, and exempts the vast majority. So this statement of yours is gross misinformation.

Here’s an article I was just reading, China looks to be part of the solution - especially when looked at relative to a laggard like Canada:

http://tinyurl.com/57x5yv

China overtakes UK as a key country for investment in renewable energy

Ernst & Young’s renewable energy country attractiveness indices

London, 19 August 2008 —China displaced the UK in the top five most attractive countries for investment in renewable energy for the first time in the indices’ five-year history. This is according to the latest Ernst & Young renewable energy country attractiveness indices, which track and score global investment in renewable energy in the first six months of 2008.

The UK dropped from fourth to sixth place in the all renewables index and from second to fifth place in the long-term wind index. The report shows that China is diversifying its energy supply by incorporating more sustainable sources into its rapidly expanding energy generation mix.

China invests heavily in renewables

Jonathan Johns, head of renewable energy at Ernst & Young, says that the Chinese success story has been driven, in part, by the government’s renewable energy policy which aims to generate 15% of the country’s energy from non-carbon sources by 2020.

“Investment in China has been boosted by the government’s energy policy, which secures renewable energy as a vital and important part of the country’s energy mix. China’s stellar growth in renewables can also be attributed to the speed at which it has built up its supply chain capability, to the point where it is likely to have nine gigawatts of manufacturing capacity in a few years,” Johns comments.

“China is also likely to become a significant exporter of wind turbine equipment in a few years, adding to its already strong presence in the solar industry.”

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/326294

==============

“No gasoline-powered car assembled in North America would meet China’s current fuel-efficiency standard.

Even vehicles produced under California’s proposed, and much praised, efficiency law – being fought tooth and nail by the U.S. and Canadian governments and the auto industry – wouldn’t come close to the Chinese mileage limits.

If that’s a shock, take a deep breath. There’s more.”

==============

I’m not saying they’re peachy. But compared to Canada, in terms of what they’re doing today? The word “scooped!” comes to mind.

If that’s a shock, take a deep breath. There’s more.”

just don’t take that breath in China. The air is a little thick.

China invests in everything - including opening a dirty new coal fired generator every single week.

You also forgot to mention. China’s population grows the size of the UK EVERY 5 YEARS! https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/ch.html And in ten years will add 100 million people to the planet.

China is not doing this to reduce CO2 emissions, they are doing this because they know in 15 years at present growth rates that they will require all the world’s current oil output, 86mb/d, leaving nothing for every one else.

Wow. This is rich.
The AGW cult is now so completely out of gas that they are trying to claim China is a shining light.

LOLOOLOLOLOLOLO

You just can’t make this stuff up. Its just to absurd.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL

… just more responsible than the current Canadian government. We’re not holding the bar very high.

Can’t argue with one bit of that post.
Good one.

I see there is a certain consensus that Richard is deleting comments in an unfair manner to hide possible weak arguments.

However I am not convinced of the Littlemore Post Delete Doctrine.

I remain an LPDD skeptic, although I am open to consider the possibilities :}

Rick,

Here is a recent statement from Littlemore himself. He posted it after it became glaringly obvious to everyone that he had deleted a series of my comments, and that he was quite arbitrarily practising censorship. Ironically, he censored his own comment, once he finally realised that he had embarrassed himself. Fortunately, the Internet has a long memory.

######################################

[This is a comment originally posted by Richard Littlemore, which he subsequently deleted. My response, which he repeatedly deleted, is below]

I’d like to apologize for Rob

Submitted by Richard Littlemore on Sat, 2008-08-23 08:32.

Avid DeSmogBlog readers will notice the periodic appearance (and disappearance) of a series of comments from “Rob,” whose principal point seems to be that we at the DeSmogBlog are “censoring” his comments.

Yes, Rob is totally correct. We have banned him from the site for profanity and libel (not to mention general rudeness and stupidity which, clearly, are not considered firing offenses on the DeSmogBlog comment role). Now, Rob keeps wandering off to different IP addresses and submitting new comments, some of which I don’t notice and remove as quickly as I would like.

This proves that Rob’s capacity to be irritating trumps my desire to maintain a (relatively) civil conversation on the blog. So, yes, the censorship will continue. We reserve the right to banish people who are swearing, accusing other commenters of participating in lewd sexual acts or making unsupported statements that are libelous. And a banisment doesn’t mean we will only delete nasty comments. If you fail (as Rob did) to curb your tongue after two warnings, you’re just gone.

Rob seems unwilling to take his lumps - to go away or even to create a new, slightly more mannerly persona and return to the conversation. This, I fear, will contribute to our ongoing reconsideration of the DeSmogBlog comment policy, resulting, in all likelihood, in a crackdown that will adversely effect what could otherwise be a wide-open conversation.

Nice one, Rob. Your input is proving to be as valuable as ever.

[NOTE: This comment has been repeatedly censored by Richard Littlemore for it’s profanity, mention of lewd sex acts, and “unsupported statements” – or maybe there’s a different reason?]

“”Rob,” whose principal point seems to be that we at the DeSmogBlog are “censoring” his comments.”

You miss the point, then. The fact that you are censoring comments is blatantly obvious, and you have finally admitted as much. My calling further attention to that fact is redundant. You’ve unwittingly done that all by yourself.

“We have banned him from the site for profanity”

No you haven’t. Your site is full of examples of “profanity”, some of it from your own authors:

http://tinyurl.com/5bggty
http://tinyurl.com/59gsd7
http://tinyurl.com/5kthfo

“and libel”

Libel? When have I done that? Are you a lawyer, now too? If you wanted to constrain libel, then you’d have to fire all the employees of James Hoggan PR Inc., and shut down your web site. Maybe you should look in the mirror, Mr. Littlemore?

“not to mention general rudeness and stupidity”

If rudeness and stupidity were banishing offenses, then why do you still allow certifiable half-wits like “Frank Bi” or “VJ” to continue posting comments? In fact, I doubt you’d have many commenters left at all, never mind authors, for your promotional site.

“which, clearly, are not considered firing offenses on the DeSmogBlog comment role”

You are in no position to fire me, since I don’t work for you. This does shed some light on your apparent delusion over our relaltive positions, however.

“This proves that Rob’s capacity to be irritating trumps my desire to maintain a (relatively) civil conversation on the blog.”

Being “irritating” to would-be authoritarian dissemblers such as you is prima facie evidence of what you really represent. I highly doubt you have any desire to maintain a “civil conversation” – relative, or otherwise.

“So, yes, the censorship will continue.”

How’s that working out for you?

“We reserve the right to banish people who are swearing, accusing other commenters of participating in lewd sexual acts or making unsupported statements that are libelous.”

Speaking of unsupported statements …
As I said before, you need to take a look in the mirror.

“And a banisment doesn’t mean we will only delete nasty comments.”

Sure, why constrain yourself? As always, you will also continue to delete comments which cause you embarassment, refute your claims, or expose your propaganda for what it is.

“If you fail (as Rob did) to curb your tongue after two warnings, you’re just gone.”

The number of “warnings” I received was exactly ZERO. In any case, I have no intention of submitting for your approval what I do or don’t say.

“Rob seems unwilling to take his lumps”

No. You are simply in no position to hand out any “lumps”. That’s just another of your delusions.

“to go away or even to create a new, slightly more mannerly persona and return to the conversation.”

Nope. Sorry. Not gonna happen. I have no intention of making myself inoffensive to the likes of you.

“This, I fear, will contribute to our ongoing reconsideration of the DeSmogBlog comment policy, resulting, in all likelihood, in a crackdown that will adversely effect what could otherwise be a wide-open conversation.”

The fact that you continue to be so eager to act as a censor contradicts any possibility that you want a “wide-open conversation”. Rather hypocritical, don’t you think?

Interesting adjustment:

In Winnipeg today, Stephane Dion gave his stump speech but Bob Fife from CTV noticed that it was lacking something. Fife noticed that Dion only mentioned “Green Shift” once in his speech and did not mention the carbon tax once. The CTV reporter asked if the Green Shift was still central to the campaign. Dion responded, “You have said it was but never me”

Interesting no one from Desmogblog refuted my posts on the inequity of the Liberal Carbon SHAFT. They can’t because that’s what the Liberal numbers give.

Guess that’s why the LIberals have dropped it cold.

Last night Ralph Goodale claimed that people would only pay about $400 more a year due to the carbon tax, but get back $1400. So if it is revenue neutral who is paying the $1000? Premier Brad Wall said on Mikle Duffy last night the carbon tax will increase untility costs to everyone by 40% minumum. Goodale said that was false, but refused to give an number of their own.

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/502906
“Green Shift: Are Liberals downplaying eco plan?”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/17/cool-look-at-the-future/

“Technologies are improving rapidly so it might be far cheaper to wait until the new technologies become available before taking action. It also might be less expensive to find ways to adapt to climate change (either cooler or warmer) than try to change the climate - people in Minnesota adapt to cooler climates and do not suffer lower incomes than those in warmer Florida. “

BRITAIN PUSHES TO WATER DOWN EU CLIMATE POLICY
EurActiv, 18 September 2008

LEAKED PAPERS SHOW BRITAIN TRYING TO WEAKEN PLAN FOR EU CARBON CUTS
David Adam, The Guardian, 18 September 2008

GERMANY OPPOSES EU PLANS ON CARBON ACTIONS
Reuters, 18 September 2008

ENERGY CRISIS: BRITAIN URGED TO DUMP CLIMATE GOALS
Jeremy Lovell, Reuters, 17 September 2008

BRITAIN WILL BE PLUNGED INTO CHAOS BY ENERGY CRISIS, EXPERT WARNS
Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 17 September 2008

EU DECLARES EMISSIONS REGULATION ILLEGAL
Totally Motor, 15 September 2008

EU’S CO2 PLANS ARE A COST DISASTER: GERMAN INDUSTRY
Reuters, 15 September 2008

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2008/09/18/6798701-sun.html

Last week, the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper, after investigating along with an environmental group, reported the ETS, while “designed to fight global warming is set to hand hundreds of millions of pounds to some of Britain’s most polluting companies, with little or no benefit to the environment ….”

The ETS has been a fiasco since it was created three years ago. Among its problems:

n European governments initially blundered by handing out free credits (each allowing the holder to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide) to 12,000 large industrial emitters, meaning they created a new stock market and gave participants free stock. Then they caved into industry lobbying for more credits than their current emissions, destroying the point of cap-and-trade, which is to supply fewer permits initially and decrease that number annually. Unsurprisingly, total emissions by these companies have since gone up.

n Because too many credits were issued initially, prices crashed, making it cheaper to buy more credits than reduce emissions.

n Industries with free credits passed along costs to consumers as if they had paid for them, resulting in undeserved profits.

n Electricity prices skyrocketed, while hospitals and universities had to scramble to buy carbon credits instead of hiring staff.

n A United Nations program under which countries and industries can obtain carbon credits is rife with allegations of corruption and ineffectiveness.

[NOTE: THIS IS A REPOST OF MYHIGHLY CONTROVERSIALCOMMENT. IT WAS CENSORED BY RICHARD LITTLEMORE, JUNIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT, AT JAMES HOGGAN AND ASSOCIATES PR INC.]

“Perhaps the Prime Minster should look at some of the other economies around the world that are apparently doing well in spite of being saddled with such a radical and un-tested policy..”

Oh, come on. You don’t give the Liberals much credit, do you? Dion’s Green Shaft Tax is nothing if not soundly tested. Surely, we all remember when it had it’s first field trial by the Liberals in the 1980’s. Except then, it was called “The National Energy Plan”. As you will recall, the experiment was a resounding success – if one assumes its actual purpose was to cripple western Canada’s economy. It worked brilliantly. Encore! Encore!

“The Swedes clearly don’t appreciate that their economy is in peril due to the carbon tax that they brought in seventeen years ago.”

Ah, yes, Sweden – the sine qua non of the urban leftist’s socialist utopia. When all else fails, use Sweden as a world-beating example. Except, of course, Sweden’s economy doesn’t really measure up, when you consider their per capita GDP has consistently ranked 25% to 30% below that of the United States for decades.

“Admittedly, it is a dog eat dog world and perhaps Mr. Harper is hoping that Sweden will unwittingly sabotage their economy with this reckless policy that has resulted in them being ranked #4 in the world in competitiveness.”

I disagree. Sweden has not sabotaged their economy unwittingly. They did it quite … wittingly.

From your own Wikipedia link:

“The typical worker receives only 40% of his income after the tax wedge.”

Go Sweden!

But guess who is ranked #1 by the W.E.F., ahead of Sweden? Oh, that would be the United States, wouldn’t it? Apparently they somehow managed that without any sort of “carbon tax”. Go figure.

“Strangely, this un-tried experiment has also reduced their carbon emissions by 9% below 1990 levels, while their economy grew by 44%.”

That’s certainly an impressive statistic. In a similar vein, yesterday I only had five cents in my pocket. Today I found another nickel on the sidewalk. My net worth just increased by 100%. Jealous?

“The simple fact is that carbon taxes have successfully been implemented all around the world”

Imagine that, taxes being successfully “implemented”? Although, I think by “implemented”, you mean imposed.

“Meanwhile here in Canada, we are spewing out more climate altering-carbon per person than almost any country on Earth.”

Maybe that’s because over the past decade we’ve had to run our furnaces more to combat all that “Global Warming”, which isn’t being delivered as promised?

“A poll from only two months ago shows that Canadians are still demanding aggressive action on climate change”

Yes, sure they are. Let’s see you revisit this claim in a few weeks when these “demanding Canadians” vote Mr. Harper a majority government. I’d think that will be the real test.

“The world is moving to solve this critical issue yet Canada remains a big part of the problem - and that problem is Stephen Harper.”

My name is Stephan Dion, and I approve this message. (Paid for by the Liberal Party of Canada). Once a PR company, always a PR company, eh, “Desmogblog”?


There are really lots of similarities between the United States and United Kingdom. it’s not just the language that they used are similar with both nation, paydays loans are also widely used with both the country. Payday loans are more or less the same. The requirements are pretty-much the same in both America and the UK.  You have to have a job, and you have to be able to not only prove it, but prove that you’ve been there for at least 3 months, and you have to have an open and active checking account in good standing.  We may not have nearly the amount of bookies, soccer hooligans, and we don’t give out knighthoods, but our payday loans are the same.

[x]

The day after some 400,000 people marched in the streets of New York to call for climate justice, the world woke to some more historic news: The Rockefeller family, heirs to the Standard Oil fortune, announced that they were directing their $860 million charitable...

read more