It would probably be a safe bet that going forward into the next election the Liberals’ will disavow any connection with the doomed Greenshift® (aka the “tax on everything” according to the Harperettes) which proved to be such a disastrous liability at the ballot box last fall. But what instead will they be advocating to limit carbon emissions? Perhaps a complex trading scheme such as the one favoured by the current U.S. administration… What could possibly go wrong with that?
11 Comments
June 25, 2009 at 8:45 am
Problem is, Harper has already staked out that territory, saying (god knows why) that he’s onside with Obama on establishing environmental policy in concert with the U.S…
So – in the great battle of how Harper and Ignatieff can distinguish themselves from the other, the ambiguity will no doubt continue.
June 25, 2009 at 9:21 am
The trouble with having a policy on carbon is that the media have conclusively proven that they are incapable of explaining or criticizing it. They have staked out positions of proud, ignorant idiots. They admitted repeatedly last election that the “green shift” was just too complicated for them to understand. Clearly, they expect to be patronized.
Ignatieff could say nothing at all about the issue, and then, once elected, do whatever he wants.
That is what Harper has done.
Alternatively, he could leave all details aside, and suggest to do some grand provincial-federal round-table, with experts, and try to come up with a national policy. If experts (real experts) are involved, they will probably suggest a hybrid cap and trade + carbon tax. (Like what BC has.)
June 25, 2009 at 11:43 am
They admitted repeatedly last election that the “green shift” was just too complicated for them to understand.
You’ll note they used the usual journalistic dodge to get that out by explaining that Canadians found it too complicated to understand.
They’ll keep doing that until it dawns on the rest of us that most journalists have very little understanding of what they’re reporting on, most of the time. They’re among the last people to admit that, however.
June 25, 2009 at 2:07 pm
what a great speaker that guy is.
as for the sociology prof having better fiscal policy than the economics grad: go figure? i actually voted for the campbell libs (i know, yuck! right?) largely due to their intro of a carbon tax.
if the banksters love it, it must be bad.
btw, matt taibbi has a new article out on Goldman. worth the read.
June 25, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Rob — Indeed. One has to be nothing but amused by Harper’s “What he [Obama] said” reaction to the issue given that the constituents of his so-called “base” are routinely blowing a gasket over the president’s latest “socialist” policies.
June 25, 2009 at 3:38 pm
The Next Bubble: Priming the Markets for Tomorrow’s Big Crash
Eric Janzen’s take on the next (and likely, last) bubble is still the best take on the next scam, IMO.
Go Greenies! (The co-leader of the German Greens was a participant at last month’s Bilderberg pow-wow. Yawn.)
June 25, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Harper lied again; isn’t matching Obama’s environmental platform, he means he’ll comply with a cap when it becomes a trade issue. Liberals would have fewer fossil subsidies and implemented a year earlier (low administrative cost carbon tax would already be implemented)
Obama is planning high speed rail and doing everything politically possible to fund public transit upgrades. Not matching their home retrofits is the costliest because Dion’s Green Bonds would’ve been employment timely and pay for themselves via reduced electricity bills in 3 years.
$10B to Chrysler (Zenn cars as dangerous as motorcycles are, are still illegal) would fund maybe 7500 domestically manufactured wind turbines and employ more Canadians; the transition to a green economy alone would permit increased boomer healthcare. Charge dirty dying industries and subsidies green growing ones, not Con vice-versa.
A carbon tax induces a disparate consumer lobby and a strong utility lobby. Whereas cap and trade introduces all sorts of powerful lobbies across a wide variety of industries; gets watered down.
Hydro lines from MB to MN/SK/ON. High speed rail Cgy-Edm, Windsor-MTL. Become global wave power R+D leader. Plan phase out of AB oil-sands consumption and substitute natural gas demand with fertilizer manufacture, until CCS demonstrated maybe by 2050 (I’d think their heavy industries could handle molten salt storage and chemical battery R+D). Become global leader in AGW resistant crops (did genomics cuts affect this or just send AIDS-cure researchers south?). Establish retaliatory trade policy for archipalego infringements (fight Inuit alcoholism with ship tolls?). Islands as emergency climate refugee camps. Store wheat. Chart all of Canada’s aquifers even AB’s presently blocked by oil lobby. Expand MB hydro winter greenhouse R+D nationally (great for IR health)…I’m diverting Industrial Policy advice to the leader who stands up to Fox News and stands for civilization, which is delayed by Harper’s THC platform. Helping Canadian economy with ideas helps Cons, no?
June 25, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Ronin, the magazine is called Harper’s.
June 25, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Mmmm. Molten salt storage. Yummy.
June 25, 2009 at 5:12 pm
…haven’t looked at it in detail. AB doesn’t want the advice now, but will whenever India realizes (2020?) poverty reduction is being stopped so hot AB girls can drive SUVs in their hour long 5km commutes. The idea is whoever builds oil wells now; building salt furnaces is basically the same casting. IDK if Canada even captures oil well supply chain now, peak oil will force it unless CCS gets lucky and R+D levels increase 100x.
June 26, 2009 at 12:28 am
Phillip Huggan, re “Ronin, the magazine is called Harper’s.”
Yeah, so what’s your point?