[Slava]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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.

I think that you under-estimate the American will to succeed here. While it sounds pie in the sky to eliminate dirty oil, you have to give them credit where it is due. The Americans are the most innovative and creative society on the planet. (Believe me, I'm a pure, unabashed Canadian nationalist but even in my short-sightedness I can come to the conclusion!). If Obama came out and said that this is what they were going to do and threw some money at it in terms of R&D, or even tax breaks and the will to succeed, its a definitely reachable goal.

I'm not suggesting that the Green Shift is infallible. I'm just interested in what the counter-policy is though. Rather than just say "The Green Shift won't work" I would like to see the alternative plan that will work. Instead of saying "We are in a better position to not screw things up fiscally" show me how that is going to be accomplished. Frankly, from a non-partisan viewpoint this last budget that was walking a razor-thin line of deficit doesn't instill that confidence in me!