Hey now, costs haven't gone up. Can't use the word "doubled".
Business tax hasn't gone up 20%. Remember how many pages people spent in this thread trying to spin numbers to make cost increases look smaller? But hey, if you can't handle the increased costs you deserve to be out of business or bankrupt or lose your home. Move to BC.
The really funny thing is when you listen to the NDP, they make it sound like the haven't actually done anything to affect these ppa arrangements....
Quote:
The Enron clause fundamentally changed that provision to permit companies to return already unprofitable PPAs to the balancing pool, if any government action, no matter how small, made them more unprofitable.
Yeah like a 1000% increase in carbon tax is "no matter how small".
From the "surprised but not surprised" department, the NDP have come up with yet another way to pickpocket taxpayers involuntarily. This is just pure greed:
"If passed, an Alberta government plan will see taxpayer dollars help fund the province’s election campaigns.
The recommendation was made by Edmonton-Ellerslie NDP MLA Rod Loyola in Wednesday’s ethics committee meeting. He proposed parties and candidates get a rebate for half of their campaign expenses, as long as they get at least 10 per cent of the vote."
I haven't really thought this through, but I would eliminate all corporate/union contributions and allow a maximum of say $500 or $1000 for individuals. At the same time I would reduce the amount that campaigns are allowed to spend, and eliminate public election signage (private property only). If you put strict law on how money can be spent, you reduce the amount that needs to be spent and collected in the first place.
This would mean that parties and candidates would rely on individual donors entirely, and then because they can only spend the money in certain ways it would make it more even for everyone without a public subsidy.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
The Indian State of Gujurat in 2007 emitted 154 MT of CO2e. Alberta in 2005 emitted 233 MT of CO2e. Gujurat has a population of around 60 million, we have 4.2 million.
I haven't really thought this through, but I would eliminate all corporate/union contributions and allow a maximum of say $500 or $1000 for individuals. At the same time I would reduce the amount that campaigns are allowed to spend, and eliminate public election signage (private property only). If you put strict law on how money can be spent, you reduce the amount that needs to be spent and collected in the first place.
This would mean that parties and candidates would rely on individual donors entirely, and then because they can only spend the money in certain ways it would make it more even for everyone without a public subsidy.
The problem is, the cost of getting a message out is restricted by this, in a country/province where free speech is supposed to reign. At a time when people are tuning out from politics in droves, restricting adverstising doesn't seem like a good way to get citizens engaged.
I don't like the recent US SC decision about superpacs and funding commercials, but freedom of speech is an important value to protect.
I'd prefer a system that has much higher limits, allows donations from corporations and unions, but which has disclosure obligations that must be prominently published by the party receiving the funds as a condition of accepting them, as opposed to after the election, together with disclosure of any recent contact between the donor and the recpient. For example, lets say the donation is over $1000, it must be immediately and permanently published:
---NDP has received $5000 from Local 555. Local 555 president Joe met with NDP executive member Fred last week to discuss union issues.
---The Rhino party has received $10,000 from Sensible Citizens Alberta, headed by president Edith. Edith spoke with the the Rhino party last week requesting all elected MLAs be required to wear caution signs at public events.
---McIver has received $2500 from Karen J. Citizen. This was a donation as a result of a discussion from door-knocking.
--Wildrose has received $15,000 from Huge Freaking Energy Corp. Members of their board met with Brian Jean one month ago to discuss energy policy.
This would put the issue of influence front and center and gives citizens an informed ability to evaluate who controls the ebbs and flows of policy positions.
My own experience speaking with corporate representatives of even the largest energy companies over the years is that they are very sensitive to the issue of not trying to appear to be buying politicians. If you make the donation an immediate matter of public record they'll be even more careful.
The problem is, the cost of getting a message out is restricted by this, in a country/province where free speech is supposed to reign. At a time when people are tuning out from politics in droves, restricting adverstising doesn't seem like a good way to get citizens engaged.
I don't like the recent US SC decision about superpacs and funding commercials, but freedom of speech is an important value to protect.
I'd prefer a system that has much higher limits, allows donations from corporations and unions, but which has disclosure obligations that must be prominently published by the party receiving the funds as a condition of accepting them, as opposed to after the election, together with disclosure of any recent contact between the donor and the recpient. For example, lets say the donation is over $1000, it must be immediately and permanently published:
---NDP has received $5000 from Local 555. Local 555 president Joe met with NDP executive member Fred last week to discuss union issues.
---The Rhino party has received $10,000 from Sensible Citizens Alberta, headed by president Edith. Edith spoke with the the Rhino party last week requesting all elected MLAs be required to wear caution signs at public events.
---McIver has received $2500 from Karen J. Citizen. This was a donation as a result of a discussion from door-knocking.
--Wildrose has received $15,000 from Huge Freaking Energy Corp. Members of their board met with Brian Jean one month ago to discuss energy policy.
This would put the issue of influence front and center and gives citizens an informed ability to evaluate who controls the ebbs and flows of policy positions.
My own experience speaking with corporate representatives of even the largest energy companies over the years is that they are very sensitive to the issue of not trying to appear to be buying politicians. If you make the donation an immediate matter of public record they'll be even more careful.
I would rely on old fashioned journalism to get the message out. If you couldn't reach people with carefully crafted adds that portray an unchallenged methods but instead had to get networks to give you and your competitors air time you would see a much better product out there.
Money does not equal speech.
It would also rely on active bases reaching out in communities. Look at how Nenshi's campaign reached out.
The problem with any disclosure laws is that it isn't news. And if each day there is a $1000 or $10,000 donation it eventually becomes noise and the info just sits on a government website some where.
There's only so much door-knocking can do, and that's by each candidate. To get a message out about policy, you have to advertise. That takes money. Its effectively speech in this age. As stated above its not ideal, but it is.
In an ideal world, money would not equal speech. We do not, however, live in an ideal world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
There's only so much door-knocking can do, and that's by each candidate. To get a message out about policy, you have to advertise. That takes money. Its effectively speech in this age. As stated above its not ideal, but it is.
Damn! I've got the perfect solution!
What we need is a National Broadcasting Service, a TV channel owned by the people so that political groups have a cost efficient manner of getting their messages out to the masses so that everyone can be informed of the varied but important nuances of each individual political platform.
Lets see....what could we call it?
- Alberta Social Service
- Social Honesty Intelligence Triumvirate
- Federal Union of Canadian Keynesiasts
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
There's only so much door-knocking can do, and that's by each candidate. To get a message out about policy, you have to advertise. That takes money. Its effectively speech in this age. As stated above its not ideal, but it is.
Well I don't disagree that speech is somewhat equal to money in this system as it stands today. That is exactly why we need strict limits to make sure that everyone gets the same amount of input. If you open the door to people with more money being able to influence the system more than anyone else there are a number of significant issues with that.
Does a lower spending limit mean that campaigns need to generate other ways to get their word out? Sure. It means they have to focus on earned media as opposed to just spending more money on TV ads or whatever to spin things the way they prefer. I think that is a net positive for the process though.
Yet it's the type of place that some people are expecting to take the brunt of GHG reduction.
Yes. If a country is only partially industrialized or a large portion of their populace doesn't live by 21st century or even late 20th century standards, their per capita emissions should be lower through a reduced demand of energy relative to the size of their population.
As a country moves into modern levels of industrialization or they see significant increases to the standard of living for their entire population, their energy needs are likely to increase substantially.
When people talk about GHG emissions growth... the modernization of a 3rd world country is going to contribute to more emissions than the growth within Canada.
Not saying we shouldn't control our pollution or try to reduce... just not worth sacrificing an entire economy over our contributions.
__________________
Keep the Flame Alive
Last edited by Igniter; 08-11-2016 at 03:27 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Igniter For This Useful Post:
The Indian State of Gujurat in 2007 emitted 154 MT of CO2e. Alberta in 2005 emitted 233 MT of CO2e. Gujurat has a population of around 60 million, we have 4.2 million.
What a bad comparison.
You are aware that Canada produces 2% of the world's carbon emissions right? Of that 2% the oil sands produces 0.15% of the worlds carbon emissions right?
You are aware that china and the u.s. total 40% of the worlds emissions right?
But maybe you're looking at talking per person. Ok.
There are 13 countries ahead of canada's in carbon production per capita. None of which are cold weather climates. The countries include saudi arabia, austrailia and the u.s.
What we need is a National Broadcasting Service, a TV channel owned by the people so that political groups have a cost efficient manner of getting their messages out to the masses so that everyone can be informed of the varied but important nuances of each individual political platform.
Lets see....what could we call it?
- Alberta Social Service
- Social Honesty Intelligence Triumvirate
- Federal Union of Canadian Keynesiasts
