Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I can certainly see your point here. If anything I would call myself a "blue" Liberal. I think that the polling in Alberta shows that while we all tend to think that the governments (both provincially and federally) are not doing enough to protect the environment, we are all still protective of the oil sands and the economy that comes with them.
I think that this is a hard question to detail any plan for though, and there are a lot of "what ifs". But what would happen to our economy based on the oil sands if a political movement came into being in the United States that simply said they would not use "dirty oil"? I don't think that this can be ignored. Kennedy stood up and said in ten years they would put a man on the moon...which to me was a far more daunting task then being free of dirty oil within the same time period and they accomplished that goal.
For Canada to sit back and just roll along as it because countries like China are not changing is foolish; the infrastructure to sell to China and India is not as extensive as it is for our neighbours to the south, and simply put, not in place. Rather than taking an attitude of
"we'll find other markets" or "they will never be able to break their reliance" what we should be doing is taking steps to be able to say "this oil is going through the strongest and most effective environmental controls in the world. We know that there is a world beyond oil and we are working on that as well, but in the meantime we are making sure that the impact on the environment is as small as possible."
As a fiscal conservative myself, if this meant that a 1% drop in growth took place in the short-term, but it preserved or even created a long-term competitive advantage then I would be willing to consider this option.
My other point here is that its an option. I am still waiting to see what the CPC option is though...which on the most important issue in years appears to be nothing but attacking the other plans as invalid.
|
I think the environment is a huge concern, but the issue a lot of people have, is with the notion that taxation will make it better. Slapping a tax on something is simply lazy policy, and with something like energy (Oil/Gas/Coal/etc.), they will simply pass their costs to the next stage, and so on until the consumer is saddled with a huge burden. With things like transport, heat, and manufacturing, in a country with this size, climate and distribution, cutting down is simply not an option. I'm waiting to hear any candidate come up with a better answer than either nothing, or nose-diving the economy.
Another thing, "President Obama" will never ween America off "dirty oil." Even if he wants to (which I doubt, he's not that stupid), his advisors will give him a sturdy slap in the back of the head, and point out that the major remaining sources of oil are politically unstable, would simply love to hurt the US, commit human atrocities on a daily basis, or are rapidly depleting themselves. Going to the moon is a cakewalk compared to that bold 10 year claim. However, what the Oilsands, and Oil Shale deposits represent are a warning flag that we are likely in our last century of oil, and need to ween off it responsibly. Doing so may very well take 50 years, and those deposits will help make sure we make it. Let alone the Canadian angle. A good, solid, incentive/penalty system will help keep the oilsands and other major polluters responsible. Stay on the cutting edge, and pay little to no tax. Cheap out, and pay through the nose and lose your competitive edge. Lots of O&G companies are already doing so, because its in their best interest to be efficient and clean... and lucrative. (CO2 sequestration for example).
Taking that 1-4% of GDP out of the economy not only means tens (hundreds if 4%) of thousands of jobs, but likely that needed competitive edge to actually get ahead of the curve and speed up the switch from oil to alternative energies. For that reason, its not worth the risk.
I think its funny that the NDP attack the CPCs for a ~12% child poverty rate... yet, let the left loose with these tax schemes, and that number is likely to spike with the job losses associated with a loss in GDP, regardless of any wealth transfer schemes they may have.