40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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).

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Education, cultural shifts, and tax incentives to corporations to change their methods is the way to go, not arbitrarily slapping a tax on emmissions and then hoping that the organizations that you tap won't just pass that tax onto the consumers, or even worse move their manufacturing to a country with cheap labor and no emmission standards.

Agree with and just using both your posts as examples to pose a question.

Wouldn't cap and trade (emmissions trading) make more sense as a political strategy than a carbon tax?

Higher polluter pays more (for going over cap), lower polluters benefit more (staying under cap and selling off excess credits). Would rewards lower polluters and promote new technology.

It's a bit simplified explanation of a complex process and has problems (as all new processes do) I admit. IMO it's worth investigating and learning from Europe's mistakes (initial no. of permit allocation). A work in progress you might say.

And for those attacking Dion on his tax and its knock-on effect to the consumer it's worth noting that Harper might consider it.

Stop worrying about a carbon tax driving up the cost of everything we buy after this election.
Start worrying about a cap-and-trade carbon market doing the same thing.
Canada will only get a carbon tax if Liberal Leader Stephane Dion wins a majority government Oct. 14, or a minority in which Green Party Leader Elizabeth May holds the balance of power -- both unlikely.
By contrast, it's very likely the next Parliament will create a cap-and-trade system. To varying degrees, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP Leader Jack Layton, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe, Dion and May all support cap-and-trade, as do U.S. presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain, neither of whom supports a carbon tax........

.....Politicians prefer cap-and-trade to carbon taxes because they never have to say the word "tax," which is also why Dion doesn't talk about carbon taxes but a "green shift."
But cap-and-trade does exactly what a carbon tax does -- puts a price on emitting carbon -- an added cost to businesses they will pass along to us for everything we buy from utilities to fuel, manufactured goods and food.

http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/200...99196-sun.html

Has Harper spoken about this? Apart from attacking Dion has he suggested anything re. emmissions?

[Ronald Pagan]

Mr. Harper has made attacking this levy a cornerstone of his election campaign, warning it would tip Canada into recession by raising fuel prices.
“It [would] wreak havoc on Canada's economy, destroy jobs, weaken business at a time of global uncertainty,” Mr. Harper told a Montreal crowd during the first week of the campaign.


But University of Calgary tax economist Jack Mintz, whose expertise the Harper government has previously praised, says he can't see the Liberal plan leading to a recession.


Of the $15.4-billion that a $40-per-tonne carbon tax would collect, according to the Liberal plan, roughly $10.5-billion would be funnelled to individuals and corporations in tax cuts. These are breaks that would surely spur economic growth, Dr. Mintz says. (Another $3.7-billion would be redistributed as support to low- and middle-income families.)



In fact, Simon Fraser University economist Marc Jaccard, an energy expert, says he doubts that either the Liberal proposal or the Conservative plan, entitled Turning the Page, would inflict significant economic pain on Canada.
He says nobody in the worldwide economic community who follows carbon taxes believes there's “any kind of economic impact” from a levy at the level the Liberals propose.


As well, Dr. Jaccard says his preliminary analysis shows that the Liberal plan would outperform the Conservative one when it comes to achieving emissions reductions. He said that's because there's a number of structural flaws that would render the Tory plan ineffective.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../BNStory/Front


Fire and brimstone indeed.

[old-fart]

Funny that the Libs are now back-peddaling as fast as possible on the Green Shaft then, isn't it?

Of course, no country the size of Canada (geography) has even tried a carbon tax, but don't let that sway you. Also, almost every European country that has implemented a carbon tax has seen huge reductions in their manufacturing industry, and their "green" businesses are almost entirely subsidized by their governments.

But no... the carbon tax scam the Libs were proposing and are now running from won't have any adverse affects on the economy.

I also have some nice ocean front property in Regina to sell you....

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../BNStory/Front


Fire and brimstone indeed.

Quick question for you:

If the Carbon Tax and the income tax cuts proposed are supposed to be revenue neutral, where does the money to pay for all of the spending announcements they've made come from?

In Addition:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...on2008&no_ads=

The western opposition to the Green Shift proposal includes Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, who appeared on CTV's Mike Duffy Live from Banff, Alta. on Friday night. Wall said he doesn't support the initiative because his citizens would be hit with larger electrical bills.

"It's a 41 per cent increase, according to the analysis our environment ministry has done," Wall said. "Yes, there is a shift back into the province through some of these income tax benefits but according to our research the net loss is half a billion dollars."

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Funny that the Libs are now back-peddaling as fast as possible on the Green Shaft then, isn't it?

"Stephane Dion distancing himself from the Green Shift is like Tim Hortons distancing themselves from the donut," Harper said. "Just because the carbon tax is now a hidden agenda, doesn't mean it's going to go away."

[ernie]

The two week tally for spending promises:

Conservative: ~2 billion

NDP: ~16 billion

Greens: ~ 40 billion

Liberals: ~80 billion...call me crazy but people always wonder where the heck the NDP will get the money from but the Liberals are just running away with the "vote buying" this time around.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-promises.aspx

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by ernie

The two week tally for spending promises:

Conservative: ~2 billion

NDP: ~16 billion

Greens: ~ 40 billion

Liberals: ~80 billion...call me crazy but people always wonder where the heck the NDP will get the money from but the Liberals are just running away with the "vote buying" this time around.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-promises.aspx

Problem with the comparison is that all of the conservative and Green proposals are per year, while many of the NDP and Liberal ones are spread over 5 or 10 years. The Liberal proposals comes out to around 15 billion per year. By comparison, the Green proposals is around 35 billion per year, the Conservatives are about 2 billion per year, and the NDP around 5 billion per year.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Problem with the comparison is that all of the conservative and Green proposals are per year, while many of the NDP and Liberal ones are spread over 5 or 10 years. The Liberal proposals comes out to around 15 billion per year. By comparison, the Green proposals is around 35 billion per year, the Conservatives are about 2 billion per year, and the NDP around 5 billion per year.

Exactly.

The overwhelming majority (87.5%) of the Liberals' campaign spending pledges comes from a single proposal, with the spending being spread over a full decade:

$70 billion over 10 years: for infrastructure and transit programs.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Exactly.

The overwhelming majority (87.5%) of the Liberals' campaign spending pledges comes from a single proposal, with the spending being spread over a full decade:

The numbers should have been posted as a per year basis to avoid the appearance of bias. Having said that, just that one Liberal proposal is 7 Billion per YEAR.

[old-fart]

Where are the Libs getting all this money from? You know, because the Green Shaft is "revenue neutral" (haha - ya right). Are they planning on raising GST as Dion has previously mused about? Perhaps cutting other programs? Can anyone tell us where the money is going to come from?

[Slava]

[quote=ernie;1438385]The two week tally for spending promises:

Conservative: ~2 billion

NDP: ~16 billion

Greens: ~ 40 billion

Liberals: ~80 billion...call me crazy but people always wonder where the heck the NDP will get the money from but the Liberals are just running away with the "vote buying" this time around.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...spx[/quote]

Not only is this twisting the facts, but I like how its is limited to two weeks. I guess the week leading up to the election where Harper was throwing paper like a ticker tape parade doesn't count then?

I suppose the last couple of budgets where Harper has spent more money than anyother prime minister in history don't count either?

The Conservatives tell everyone willing to listen that they are the ones who will guide the economy through tough times, but earlier this past year they barely even kept us out of deficit. The Liberals on the other hand not only erased the budget deficit, but got the financial house in order in the first place through the 90's and early part of this decade.

As far as questions about where the Liberals are getting the money there are a couple of things: A) The full plan has been analysed and sourced in this thread (notably by Mintz on this page). The Green Shift was analysed not only by Mintz but by leading economists in the first place and was also designed with their input.

Lastly, you can come out and question Dion yourself tomorrow evening. He is in Calgary at the Greenwood Inn at 7:15pm for a townhall meeting. You don't have to like my answers (and really its just politics, at least we all agree on the best NHL team!!), but ask him the questions and see if you like his answers better!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Not only is this twisting the facts, but I like how its is limited to two weeks. I guess the week leading up to the election where Harper was throwing paper like a ticker tape parade doesn't count then?

Most of those promises where already built into the current budget. Not additional spending items

I suppose the last couple of budgets where Harper has spent more money than anyother prime minister in history don't count either?

Lets not forget that they made the most money out of any other government as well.

The Conservatives tell everyone willing to listen that they are the ones who will guide the economy through tough times, but earlier this past year they barely even kept us out of deficit. The Liberals on the other hand not only erased the budget deficit, but got the financial house in order in the first place through the 90's and early part of this decade.

Good god does this piss me off. First, a budget is made up of 12 months. Any person with common sense knows that some months have more income than others, busier times over slower times, thus, a projected budget surplus could easily have some months that ran deficits. Second, the conservatives budgeted the slow down and expected that they may run a deficit for several months before the end of the year brings a surplus. Now, tell me, would you rather have some government who can't figure out the numbers for a budget and have a HUGE surplus because they couldn't add (which usually would mean that the unbudgetted money could be spent on pet projects of the governing party) or a government who tries to establish a budget as close as possible to breaking even.

Now, tell me this. What if a government budgeted to pay 10 billion on the debt, but because of that amount the government was short 1 billion. Now, is that a deficit or can they just pay 9 billion onto the debt and call it an even budget?

I would say it is a even budget. Wouldn't you.

As far as questions about where the Liberals are getting the money there are a couple of things: A) The full plan has been analysed and sourced in this thread (notably by Mintz on this page). The Green Shift was analysed not only by Mintz but by leading economists in the first place and was also designed with their input.

I see one point here and nothing about articulating where the money will come from.

Lastly, you can come out and question Dion yourself tomorrow evening. He is in Calgary at the Greenwood Inn at 7:15pm for a townhall meeting. You don't have to like my answers (and really its just politics, at least we all agree on the best NHL team!!), but ask him the questions and see if you like his answers better!

Oh, ya. He is going to answer my questions if I go down there. He is so scared of his green shift now that he wont even talk about it anymore because he has realized that the average Canadian is smart enough to see it for what it is.

I just want Dion to keep talking, because the more he opens his mouth the higher the conservative polls climb.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

You argue that the Liberal government is responsible for the budget surpluses that can be found in previous governments and yet ignore the fact that the world's economy as a whole is struggling, no matter what the conservatives do they are going to be in a tough spot with regards to the economy. Personally I would rather have seen them be more fiscally prudent during their time in office, but that being said I could easily see a Dion government pushing Canada into the red based on what I have read.

[Slava]

^ My point here isn't that the Liberals are magicians that can buck the trend when the global economy gets affected. All I'm saying is that when someone makes the claim that they are going to be fantastic stewards of the fiscal situation and things were shaky before this whole thing rocked the markets its makes me leary. The Liberals were in power for some fantastic growth globally, and also some troubled times...but the budget was stable and effective during those times. If a budget was in deficit while times were good it makes me question how past spending decisions were modelled and projected...thats all.

By the way JOM, he will answer your questions. That is the point of a townhall meeting...you can ask questions and he answers them. Don't think for a second that he expects to hold this in Calgary and not face questions about the Green Shift. Even if you don't ask the question there is a good chance that someone else in the audience is going to ask it. That is something that Liberals in Alberta want to hear about as well!

[kermitology]

I'm not really seeing the point of the environmental platform being the key component of the election.

Colour me surprised should any government be formed that is a majority, other than the potential of the Conservatives. So in effect, basing a vote on the various environmental policies seems silly.

I was hell-bent on not voting Conservative because of Bill C-61, but that's dead now, and refusing to vote Conservative on that basis seems silly to me now.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'm not really seeing the point of the environmental platform being the key component of the election.

Colour me surprised should any government be formed that is a majority, other than the potential of the Conservatives. So in effect, basing a vote on the various environmental policies seems silly.

I was hell-bent on not voting Conservative because of Bill C-61, but that's dead now, and refusing to vote Conservative on that basis seems silly to me now.

I think that was there intention all along with that bill. Try to appease the recording industry by showing they were working on a bill but all along having the intention of the government being toppled before it could be passed.

Atleast that is what I hope they were doing.

[Bagor]

I'm still waiting to hear what Harper's plan is re. GG emmissions.

Ottawa, January 7, 2008 – Canada can achieve deep greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions by 2050, but only by putting a price on carbon emissions throughout the entire Canadian economy beginning as soon as possible, concludes the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) in a new climate change report released today entitled Getting to 2050: Canada’s Transition to a Low-emission Future.

At the request of the Minister of the Environment, the NRTEE explored potential scenarios for how Canada could achieve deep, long-term GHG emission reduction targets .....

The central recommendation of the report is to establish an economy-wide price signal for carbon emissions as soon as possible. The NRTEE research shows that the most effective and efficient policy that would result in deep GHG emission reductions is a market-based policy, such as an emissions tax, a cap-and-trade system, or a combination of the two.

Now why would he attack Dion for acting on the advice of a study that his government recommended?

I'm not arguing against Dion being fuzzy on the subject and suffering from foot in mouth disease but I'd like to hear a bit more from Harper on his strategy. It's clever politics I admit to concentrate on the negatives of Dion as that's what voters will remember but I'd like to see a bit of substance from him too. So far he's offered up nothing.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Looks like Dion won't support a fight for Canada's arctic sovereignty if he forms a government.

“We can't win against the Americans; we can't win against the Russians and we are too civilized to shoot the Danes." (Dion Campaign Rally in Alexandria, CPAC, September 20, 2008)

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'm still waiting to hear what Harper's plan is re. GG emmissions.



Now why would he attack Dion for acting on the advice of a study that his government recommended?

I'm not arguing against Dion being fuzzy on the subject and suffering from foot in mouth disease but I'd like to hear a bit more from Harper on his strategy. It's clever politics I admit to concentrate on the negatives of Dion as that's what voters will remember but I'd like to see a bit of substance from him too. So far he's offered up nothing.

Dion doesn't even know what the Green shift is. First it is a Carbon tax, no he is claiming it isn't and that the conservatives have propogated that belief. See below quotes.

“We are starting to explain it after months, months of propaganda by the Conservatives. I'm sure you and many people thought it was a carbon tax. You didn't know it was a green shift” (CBC Radio interview, quoted in http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080918.wdion_green0918/BNStory/National, September 18, 2008).

But this is what he had to say previously.

• “Very seriously, a carbon tax…” (Stéphane Dion, CTV Question Period, April 27, 2008).
• “And the average cost of the carbon tax for families is about $250” (Stéphane Dion, CPAC, Primetime Politics, June 19, 2008).
• "At the end of the day, we should not exaggerate the size of the carbon tax," said Dion. "In the last two days, a barrel of oil decreased its cost by $11 a barrel. That's twice the size of the carbon tax of our plan" (Moncton Times and Transcript, July 18, 2008).
• "So the carbon tax is not so regressive when you look at that" (Stéphane Dion, Winnipeg Free Press, July 2, 2008).
• "The carbon tax is not the only tool," (Stéphane Dion, Edmonton Journal, July 8, 2008).
• "Many who have middle- and low-income earnings will receive more than what the carbon tax will cost them," he said (Stéphane Dion, New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal, July 17, 2008).
• "The carbon tax will have a greater effect on people who consume more" (Stéphane Dion, Maclean’s, July 23, 2008, http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080723_25891_25891).
• “With a national carbon tax on the table” (Stéphane Dion Speech in Winnipeg, June 17, 2008).

Keep it coming Mr. Dion.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Dion doesn't even know what the Green shift is. First it is a Carbon tax, no he is claiming it isn't and that the conservatives have propogated that belief. See below quotes.

Don't know why you quoted me in your post.


I'm not disagreeing that he's made a whole mess out of communicating this issue. As it stands IMO IT IS a Carbon Tax, simple as that. Why he's all over the place and can't just say that is beyond me. Harper's ads completely threw him and his advisers.

But it still doesn't answer my question as to why Harper would attack so vehemently the conclusions and recommendations of NRTEE in a study requested by his very own government.

Based on the research and analysis contained in this report and supporting documentation, the NRTEE makes the following recommendations to the federal government:

2. Institute a market-based policy that takes the form of an emission tax or a cap-and-trade system or a combination of the two.

http://www.nrtee-trnee.com/eng/publi...ow-res-eng.pdf

So.. to recap.

Dion proposes something ....
that was specifically recommended to the Harper government...
by an advisory body ...
that the Harper government consulted....
and Harper attacks the proposal?

Gotta love politics.

Originally Posted by old-fart

Also, almost every European country that has implemented a carbon tax has seen huge reductions in their manufacturing industry

Really? Have you a link to back that up?

Both Norway and Sweden have had a carbon tax plan since the early 1990s. According to an April 29, 2008 Guardian article, Sweden cut its overall carbon emissions by nine per cent between 1990 and 2006. Its economy grew by 44 per cent in that period.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...e=election2008