- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Anti-Tax Group Flunks Math
Slam on BC's carbon tax by Canadian Taxpayers Fed doesn't add up.
CTF's Bader: 'Guesstimate.'
Ever since the B.C. carbon tax was announced in February it's been attacked from both left and right as a tax grab that will hurt the average British Columbian.
One of the most persistent critics has been the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Their tax-grab argument, however, appears to be based on some questionable numbers.
In a series of opinion pieces in CanWest newspapers including the National Post, the Vancouver Sun and the Province, federation officials have argued that the carbon tax is going to hurt middle-class families.
For example, John Williamson, federal director of the Taxpayers Federation, wrote last month in an article that ran in the Post and the Sun that "a two-income family earning $90,000 with two kids will save $85 this year in lower personal income taxes. Yet, according to the B.C. budget, that same family will pay an additional $100 in gas taxes and another $35 in home heating costs.
"B.C.'s tax shifting translates into a middle-class tax increase."
Maureen Bader, B.C. director of the federation, said essentially the same thing in the Province.
The problem is, the budget doesn't say that.
It's got plenty of figures on how different people will fare under the carbon tax, which comes into effect July 1. But every scenario shows taxpayers coming out ahead, thanks to the income tax breaks that will be funded by the carbon tax.
Finance minister mystified by group's claim
The budget does talk about a hypothetical family making $90,000. It does say the carbon tax will cost them about $100 more to drive their cars. That's in 2009, when the tax will be in effect for the full year.
And the budget does say that this family will get $85 back in income tax cuts -- in 2008, when the carbon tax and the tax cuts will be in effect for only half the year.
According to the budget, the tax breaks for 2009 work out to $224. Total carbon taxes are $149 -- meaning that our imaginary family comes out ahead by $75 at the end of the year.
Furthermore, the Taxpayers Federation figures don't include the $100 one-time "Climate Action Dividend," the government plans to give every British Columbian in June. That's another $400 for our hypothetical family.
"I don't know where their numbers have come from," Finance Minister Carole Taylor told The Tyee. "I know a lot of people were mixing up the half year and the full year."
'Sort of a guesstimate'
The Taxpayers Federation's Bader told The Tyee that the group's figures are a "sort of a guesstimate" for 2008 based on numbers contained in the budget.
The carbon taxes associated with driving, for example, were based on the assumption that our hypothetical family drives a total of 40,000 kilometres a year in two cars that get between 10 litres/100 kilometres and 12.5 litres/100 kilometres, she said.
However, this assumption still doesn't give you an extra gas cost of $100 over six months, as the federation articles argue.
Even if both cars burn 12.5 litres/100 kilometre, over 40,000 kilometres that works out to 5,000 litres. Multiplying that by 2.41 cents a litre -- the starting price for the carbon tax -- gives you $121.
But again, that's for a full year.
Over the last six months of 2008, Bader's "guesstimate" would work out to $60 and change, tops.
(While 20,000 kilometres a year is often cited as an average figure for calculating gas consumption, Statistics Canada estimates that the average vehicle in B.C. travels 12,218 km a year. StatsCan says drivers in B.C. drive the least of any province.)
Bader said the scenarios given in the budget tend to lowball the impact of the carbon tax.
"Of course they're going to make assumptions that are going to look good for them. It's all a matter of what assumptions you make."
CTF's site links to global warming deniers
The Taxpayers Federation has shown considerable skepticism around the whole question of man-made climate change.
Its web page contains links to the National Post's climate change deniers series. The Federation's home page also has the following comments, under the heading "A second look at global warming":
"Climate change is taking place; it always has. Yet the media and politicians present the view that climate change is bad and humans are solely responsible for destruction of the earth without any critical analysis or competing theories.
"Your CTF is a taxpayer, not science advocacy organization. But as long as the world is presented one viewpoint of so-called global-warming 'science' no tax-funded cost will be deemed inappropriate if it involves saving Mother Earth.
"Governments are now spending billions of tax dollars not only on questionable policy objectives of little measurable result but increasingly on alarmist propaganda. Please have a look at this Canadian-based website www.friendsofscience.org for more thoughtful information."
Friends of Science vs. Kyoto accord
The web site belongs to the group Friends of Science, which was "formed a few years ago in Alberta by academics and former oil industry insiders, among others, to challenge Canada's participation in the international Kyoto accord," according to the Calgary Herald.
Part of the group's mission is to "cast doubt on peer reviewed research that suggests human activity is causing dangerous changes to the climate and irreversible damage to Earth's ecosystems," the Herald said.
The Herald reported in February that Friends of Science took out a series of advertisements during the last federal election attacking the previous Liberal government's spending on climate change.
"They were financed through an elaborate system that allowed $200,000 to flow from a 53-year-old charity into a trust account at the University of Calgary," the Herald reported.
University officials shut down the account after an internal audit "that concluded its trust account had been used to 'support a partisan viewpoint on climate change,'" the Herald said.
Kevin Grandia, of DeSmogBlog, has complained to Elections Canada that Friends of Science broke the law by spending more than $500 on political advertising without registering as a third-party advertiser.
Tomorrow -- How will the carbon tax affect rural British Columbians?
Related Tyee stories:
- Jaccard Rebuts Carbon Tax Critics
Advisor to premier claims it's world-class policy. - BC's Carbon Tax Shell Game
Economist who invented 'eco-footprint' analysis is not impressed. - How Fair Is BC's New Carbon Tax?
And will it make rich people greener?
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- BC snuffs out AirCare test program
- AFN national chief Shawn Atleo to launch re-election bid
- Citizens group releases video to fight undead Bill C-30
- Conservative MP says he might vote against budget, then 'clarifies' his position
- Genetically modified plants won't take root with councillors in Richmond, BC
- Hundreds at Vancouver rally to support Quebec students
- Could Fort Mac become an eco-tourist hotspot?
- Rick Hansen's Man in Motion anniversary tour concludes in Vancouver
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- 'A Gut Feeling'
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Does BC Stand for Ban Clotheslines?
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- Death in Remand: A Jail Crammed with Risk
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Should You Run from that Medical Test?
- 'The Dictator'
- Death in Remand: Stacked Deck
- Double lung recipient dances on Ellen show
- ISS astronauts grab DragonX space capsule by the tail with Canada Arm
- Metro Vancouver gas prices peak at record levels
- Ottawa posts $9-billion deficit in March despite pledge to avoid spending spree
- BC phases out AirCare to focus on fighting bigger vehicle emissions
- Tsunami senors to be dropped into deep sea off of Vancouver Island
- Student groups file court challenge against Quebec protest law
- ...while on the streets, pirates and ninjas put aside mutual animosity to join student protests
45
Login or register to post comments
seth
4 years ago
carbon tax or just more graft?
Close to 100% of the cost of the carbon tax is payed by we the great unwashed. Two thirds of the tax benefits (revenue neutral) will kickback to BC's big business.
A really smart way to get misguided environmentalists to OK more of Campbell's legislative payoffs to his big campaign donators.
Grumpy
4 years ago
The carbon tax is the new SkyTrain tax.
With $14 billion proposed to be spent on transportation the province needs a vehicle to raise the money. After a bit o political hocus-pocus, the carbon tax was born. Vancouver wants expensive SkyTrain subways, well the province will pay for them. This is what you get when you get a bunch of Vancouver mayors (Campbell, Harcourt, Sullivan) involved with transit and transportation in this province.
Vancouver's going to get spiffy new subways, while hospitals and schools were closed and the hurtlands, will hurt more. I never knew Gordo would follow Glen Clark's transit planning!
gglave
4 years ago
Don't tax rural BC
I agree on a 'tax' on fuel to pay for transit improvements, but I dislike the term 'carbon tax,' as the North American carbon footprint will be minimally reduced.
However, I don't feel it should apply outside of the lower mainland and southern Vancouver island. If your postal code is 'rural' and you don't have an option other than driving your car the you shouldn't have to pay this tax.
Skywalker
4 years ago
With one exception Grumpy
The Heartlands were not hurting under Glen Clark. As well I stopped listening to the CTF a long time ago. You and seth and gglave are right about this tax.
Skookum1
4 years ago
Uh.....?
Since when did right-wing spin doctors' numbers ever have to add up in order to be regarded as making sense? We're not talking facts here, we're talking conservative principles....why bother with what the facts say when you can simply claim they mean something else? The Tories and GOP get into power screaming "fiscal responsibility" and then do the exact opposite, out-spending the left wing on even stupider things than the left wing would spend it on....("it" being public indebtedness that results).
dgrant
4 years ago
Grumpy, the carbon tax is
Grumpy, the carbon tax is revenue neutral. Yet you say it will help pay for transit. How so?
gglave, you're releasing carbon into the air whether or not you are forced to drive or not and the carbon tax is a way to make the user pay for the cleanup of that carbon. Exempting certain people from this tax undermines it and opens up the possibilities for all sorts of exemptions. Someone in a rural area who doesn't drive or who drives a smaller truck should be rewarded by paying less carbon tax on their smaller gas bill, and someone who lives in a rural area should be rewarded for fixing up their home so it retains heat better. If we exempt all people in rural areas from the carbon tax there will no be reduction in carbon emissions in rural areas.
mopled
4 years ago
There is no need to reduce CO2
Is it possible to get anybody to think?
Desmogblog is run by a PR firm, for heaven's sake. Everything they know comes from really doubtful sources who "massaged" data.
Why would such a doubtful source be quoted as an authority when over 400 prominent scientists say AGW is a hoax?
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Even the Co-Chair of the IPCC,Yury Izrael, says its hogwash.
"Our institute has calculated that if all fuel that has been produced and discovered were burnt in several hours, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) would increase by about 800 ppm (parts per million). This is the ceiling beyond which we won't climb. But even this figure is not sensational - in the Carbonic period some 350 million years ago the Earth had several thousand ppm (10 times more than now). This time was marked by the rapid growth of vegetation that has left us with huge coal reserves."
http://www.climatecooling.org/globalcoolingdocuments/YuryIzraelOpEd.htm
When is The Tyee going to give decent coverage to the other side of this argument?
Frank
4 years ago
mopled
Regardless of whether you believe there is it isn't happening anyway, whether in Harper's Canada or Campbell's BC.
In fact, we've never produced so much CO2 so you should be happy.
Skywalker
4 years ago
"The carbon tax is revenue nuetral"?
That all depends on your convenient access to transit or other forms of travel. It sure isn't if somebody tells you that you have to buy a smaller vehicle for another $15.000. Some revenue neutral. Ever try riding your bike in the snow and ice? It maybe revenue neutral to the government but that is because they are taking more from some and giving more to someone else, in this case business. You sure never hear about taxing some of those obscene profits of the oil companies.
mopled
4 years ago
More CO2 is BENEFICIAL
http://www.cargonewsasia.com/secured/article.aspx?id=15&article=15798
"The more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere, the better off the planet will be for humans and all other living things". If David Archibald had thrown a thunderflash among delegates at the Greener Skies 2008 conference in Hong Kong it couldn't have made a greater impact than the statement he used to start his presentation.
After a day of hearing from aviation industry leaders how the carbon footprints of the industry were boosting climate change and had to be curbed, the director of the Lavoisier Group was quickly into his stride. "In a few short years we will have a reversal of the warming of the 20th century," Archibald warned. "There will be significant cooling very soon. Our generation has known a warm, giving sun but the new generation will suffer a sun that is less giving and the earth will be less fruitful. "Carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad - it's wholly beneficial."
There would have been fewer jaws dropping if Archibald had stripped off his clothes and run naked from the room, but as his presentation continued, many no doubt wished he had disappeared. "Plant growth responds to atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment. In a world of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide, crops will use less water per unit of carbon dioxide uptake. Thus the productivity of semi-arid lands will increase the most," he said.
But Archibald cautioned that he did not bring only good news and said the world should prepare for another Ice Age. "We will need this in-crease in agricultural productivity to offset the colder weather coming. It also follows that if the developed countries of the world want to be caring and sharing to the countries of the Third World, the best thing that could be done for them is to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It is the equivalent of giving them free phosphate fertilizer. Who would want to deny the Third World such a wonderful benefit?'' He said the ability to grow food would become the overriding concern over the next decade.
In his conclusion, Archibald said higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were "wholly beneficial". "We have to be thankful to the anthropogenic global warming alarmists for one thing: if it weren't for them and their voodoo science, climate science wouldn't have attracted the attention of people from outside the field and we would be sleepwalking into that rather disruptive cooling that is coming next decade."
There was a stunned silence before Martin Craigs, president of Aerospace Forum Asia, called for the microphone. "Don't you have Al Gore's email address?" he asked. "How can you be right and 2,000 scientists wrong?" To which Archibald replied: "I am happy to share the science. It's all reputable."
Budd Campbell
4 years ago
IS THE FRASER INST NEXT?
It's nice to see the right wing blowhards at the euphemistically named Canadian Taxpayer's Federation being exposed as amateurs and fakirs. I say "euphemistically", since most of their active supporters come from privileged high income groups who have access to the most tax dodges and loopholes of any income class. The real taxpayers, the ones who just pay up, are located lower down the scale.
My hope is that The Tyee will soon catch somoone from the Fraser Inst in an embarassing error!
mopled
4 years ago
Hey, I'm and old Leftie
This is supposed to be a tax based on a scientific finding which has been thoroughly discredited. It is not supposed to be about the politics of the messenger.
I haven't quoted the F*'g Frazer Institute, so don't spout nonsensical ad hominems by proxy.
The evidence for AGW was faked! Got it! It's a scam! Got it!
"The IPCC has changed the nature of scientific investigation from:
Observation---interpretation---conclusion
to:
Idea---modelling to prove the model---lobbying to endorse the scenario"
The Greatest Lie Ever Told
by Nils-Axel Mörner
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/
mopled
4 years ago
Both
It actually matters more if levels are too low. The more enriched the atmosphere is, the better plants grow and the more drought resistance they have, smarty pants!
Since ALL human actions account for at most 3% of the total, we really don't have much influence, Mr. Know It All.
Want a reference...I've got dozens of them?
watcher_t
4 years ago
What a bunch of Hogwash
This Carbon Tax is based on a theory and personally I do not like being taxed because of theories.
How anyone can say that carbon tax is revenue neutral is beyond me.
The only thing that this is going to stop is the Americans coming up here and purchasing our already overpriced gasoline. When that happens the hospitality industry will be in the tank, unemployment rates will rise and it will hurt the economy of this province.
Transit where I live is a joke, to get across this small town is 1 hour by bus, you could walk it in 1/2 hour.
A person who is considered a low income worker commuting to work by car will be driving an old vehicle. They are not going to get great gas mileage . Those people are already struggling to put food on the table, Campbell comes along, trying to look green and adds more tax on them to fill their tanks.
Now if you are wealthy enough, it may force you to purchase a new car. What about the carbon that has been released to make that new vehicle for you. Your so called carbon foot print is now got larger because of the manufacturing cycle. Thanks to all the rebates for the hybrids you now can afford to jump on a plane and take a foreign vacation. Again increasing your carbon footprint.
As usual it is the low income and middle income earners that will carry the load on so called climate change.
What I would like to know, is why does not the media have a report on the hundreds of scientists that met last month in New York on the topic of Climate Cooling. Leading scientists from around the world were there. I have seen only one report so far on it.
Grumpy
4 years ago
dgrant.............
.........the carbon tax will be revenue neutral, like how our income tax was supposed to be temporary!
Frank
4 years ago
mopled
The evidence for AGW was faked! Got it! It's a scam! Got it!
Geez mopled, who are you talking to here since the only post I see is Budd's and he wasn't even talking to you.
zalm
4 years ago
Mopled
More Tim Ball? More Fred Singer? More Sher Idso? All your "scientists" have already been spiked by someone else. The IPCC is still the authoritative figure in this argument, and all your heroes have no problem with the IPCC's work. What do they have a problem with is the political nature of the conclusions at the end of the report.
The science says warming is happening, and CO2 is a likely measure of the magnitude of warming and of damage resulting. The science also says there is a measure of variability in the results that cannot account for all observed phenomena.
The politics says we need silly ideas like "revenue neutral carbon tax" instead of hard caps and punishing taxes on pollution.
If you should be holding anybody's feet to the fire, it should be the politicians who interfered in the last section of the report.
Sheesh! Next you'll be wanting to give a medal to the greenhouse operators in the Fraser Valley who are burning natural gas strictly for the CO2 and dump the waste heat into the atmosphere or into the ditch.
This is all old news. We've been over this ground time and again, and you're now just a crank, making everybody who posts here your enemy. We're not, but you REFUSE to recognize that.
Go ahead. Dredge up more "science". Nobody cares about your "science". And I know that's gotta hurt.
mopled
4 years ago
Says you Zalm
None of the people you have tried to dismiss would be, except by the Green Machine you support. It is such trumped up nonsense when Exxon spent$19 Million over 20 years. That can'tbegin to compare to the $50 Billion in 10 years spent on AGW by governments and foundations.
The IPCC has been denounced by more than the few you cite, as a political organization posing as a scientific one.Glaring proof of which is that the first thing offered was the the IPCC Statement For Policy Makers released months before the review of the science papers(only those up to 2005) was finished.
An exception was made for a 2006 paper needed to support the CO2 hypothesis.Two sets of rules is a dead give away.
2007 has been called:
"The Year Global Warming Died"
http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=9489_0_1_0_M
The Sloppy Science of Global Warming
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
"The Science" no longer says its warming...
because it stopped in 1998.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
"prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years."
Forecasters speak with forked crystal ball.
You are going to have to do better than sleazy smears and name calling Zalm, especially since you can't tell the difference between your own breath and pollution.
dgrant
4 years ago
duh
Skywalker, duh, it's revenue neutral for the government and means shifting wealth from greatest emitters of carbon to the least. If it's such a big deal like you're making it out to be then I'm sure it will be successful in reducing carbon emissions.
Stop whining and propose a concrete alternative.
dgrant
4 years ago
Grumpy (indeed), so what do
Grumpy (indeed), so what do you propose instead to reduce carbon emmissions?
Frank
4 years ago
dgrant
Instead? You are under the impression I assume that this will reduce emissions?
Skywalker
4 years ago
dgrant
Since when is it necessary to come up with an alternative to a "dumb" idea. The alternative is to scrap the idea that is seriously flawed. There are plenty of alternatives that get at those who make obscene profits from producing gas guzzlers and those who provide the fuel. They are immune. No, hit the little guy once more. That makes a lot of sense to you does it?
happy
4 years ago
Skywalker
The Heartlands were not hurting under Glen Clark you say? You obviously weren't looking East at the Exodus of mostly younger people heading over the Big Rocks in search of employment outside BC. The "Heartlands" were hurting far worse than the lower mainland during that time.
The only group(s) feeling good about the 90's were Public Union members. Glen saw to them first. Remember his record Provincial income tax increase in his first budget as Finance minister, a good chunk of which went to contract settlements (rewards)afterwards.
Frank
4 years ago
happy
Strange, because a lot of us arrived here in the late 80's because things on the Prairies under the Conservatives weren't very rosy at all. And yet, people seem to have quickly forgotten just how bad Conservative governments were on the prairies in the 80's and under Social Credit here in BC. Yet the subject is now Glen Clark? At least he had reasons (Asian Crisis, reduced federal transfers as Martin "tamed" the deficit) unlike Bennett, Getty and Devine.
So for every person turned off voting NDP because of Clark I assume there will be 3 (or 4) turned off voting for the Cons?
G West
4 years ago
Maybe not for long
The recently uncovered video of Brad Wall and Tom Lukiwski doing standup routines at the expense of gays and Ukrainians for their neo-con friends in Saskatchewan has reminded a lot of prairie folks what these guys are really all about.
Just got back from a trip to the prairies and all those high wheat prices don't seem to be paving the streets with gold...in fact, the average farmer is still wondering where he's gonna get the tin to pay for diesel and fertilizer this spring.
Funny thing about that too, the buccaneers who rushed out to sign tied price delivery contracts rather than sell through the wheat board are kicking themselves because they left about $6.50 a bushel on the table.
Not to even mention the faux pas of Grant Devine and Ralph Klein, Billy Vanderzalm and little Wac...how come happy only remembers one side of the coin?
BTW, Newfoundland seems to be the biggest exporter of labour in the land and they've never had anything but Liberal and Con-men in government.
D'ya suppose maybe business cycles and demand for natural resources have a lot more to do with exports and economics than whomever happens to be in power happy?
happy
4 years ago
I only know this
Business cycles and demand for natural resources have been part of BC's economic story since before we were born. And in all those years, good and bad I never recall BC experiencing net outflow migration to other provinces, nor BC being in the Have Not club.
Only in the 90's.
G West
4 years ago
Well, live and learn
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/13-605-XIE/2003001/chronology/2003provincial/cycles.htm
happy
4 years ago
learn what?
Thanks, this appears to reinforce my point.
According to StatsCan BC became less prone to business cycle downturns in the 90's.
So why did BC go from First to Worst during this period? How does it explain provincial migration outflow? Why, when the ROC was experiencing growth did BC become a Have Not? They had the same transfer payment cuts too.
The only logical answer is Govt policies. Just like those overpaid CEO's that draw so much scorn here for running a Co. into the ground, we had the political equivalant
G West
4 years ago
Sorry, look more carefully
Hasn't got much to do with politics - and a lot to do with how the provincial economy is structured....exporting resources or making stuff.
All that tax cutting didn't do a thing for Mike Harris's Ontario.
Just raise your eyes a little and consider something beyond your own horizon.
And while you're at it, do a little research on a phenomenon called the Dutch Disease - because I think we're coming down with it out here in the west....
climate criminal
4 years ago
Friends of Science
For some interesting comments about Tim Ball active in Friends of Science, see:
http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html
Some quotes:
'Few in the audience have any idea that Prof. Ball hasn't published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch.'
Andrew Weaver is the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria,
'Like other senior scientists, he charges that Prof. Ball's arguments are a grab bag of irrelevancies and falsehoods: "Ball says that our climate models do not [account for the warming effects of] water vapour. That's absurd. They all do."'
Likewise, he says, Prof. Ball's claims that climate change could be explained by variations in the earth's orbit or by sunspots are discounted by widely available data.
"What Ball is doing is not about science," says Prof. Weaver. "It is about politics."
The only thing that anyone can be sure about, is that when Tim Ball speaks, what comes out is utter balls!
happy
4 years ago
If not politics then what?
I do believe we "exported resources and made stuff" during the 90's. Just like we do now.
Whats different between the 90's and now, in how our Provincial economy is structured, as you allude to? Just answer that one, and one only, question please.
And as you so often like to wring off with -
"I couldn't care less" about Ontario or Holland. They weren't here.
G West
4 years ago
Doesn't have anything to do with 'holland' per se
But a lot to do with what happens when an economy is dominated by one kind of activity - Alberta is an extreme example.
Chipping out a quote like that doesn't really get one very far.
Because what I actually said was this:
Hasn't got much to do with politics - and a lot to do with how the provincial economy is structured....exporting resources or making stuff.
All that tax cutting didn't do a thing for Mike Harris's Ontario.
Ontario and Quebec were/are manufacturing centres and, in a world where nothing much means anything but the bottom line and so-called ROI then they're gonna be in big trouble because somebody in China will probably make it cheaper.
But, just a further tiny warning - there are some significant indications that the Chinese juggernaut is starting to cough because it's producing things that cost more than they're getting in return.
It may have kept a billion Chinese people happy for a while... but it ain't gonna last. In my view.
The economists call it misallocation of capital.
Cross reference the Japanese economy in the late 80s and 90s.
And don’t forget that the biggest job category in Canada now is ‘retail clerk’….it does make a difference.
happy
4 years ago
Agree and disagree
I'm not disagreeing with anything you say about Alberta or China. I've said for years Alberta's a One Trick Pony.
When China slows down we will feel the effects, no doubt. They absorb a huge amount of our raw minerals. But I doubt we will end up in another Economic Death Spiral like the 90's. We've gone through worse recessions before (early 80's) and we didn't have Credit downgrades and so many giving up and leaving in droves. Slower growth, sure. Thats not a bad thing. 180 degree turn back to the bottom again? Do YOU think that will happen? Barring unforseen major events (911) beyond Victoria's control.
G West
4 years ago
Yep!
I think it will make everything but 1929 - 1937 look like a walk in the park.
The whole international credit structure is in serious jeopardy and I think we're very likely heading for the bottom...and it won't be a 9/11 induced crash either.
And given the world-wide growing shortage of food and the high cost of the oil inputs it takes to farm and fertilize this one is going to really hurt.
This carbon tax/ revenue neutral thingy that Gordon's dreamed up isn't any different than the band playing while the lifeboats sink...and it will be a bureaucratic and administrative nightmare to dwarf anything the NDP ever did - if the costs of the program and the administration are factored in (plus the attendant costs of private compliance) I bet it'll cost more than doing nothing would have…and contribute absolutely bugger all to addressing the problem…..
happy
4 years ago
Well...
I was only talking about BC relative to the rest of Canada. Thats what started this whole thing and we've veered off track. Gordo can't do much about the international credit structure.
BC's economy today is better prepared for the next downturn than in the past. I was very surprised to read that BC's economy is the Least reliant province in the Country on exports to the US. Things are always changing.
G West
4 years ago
Why do you think I brought up China?
We shall see.
Frank
4 years ago
happy
I have a feeling you don't understand how equalization works. Saying BC is in the Have-Not club is simply trying to cash in on a slogan. Because "Have-Not" implies poverty.
But by all means, feel free to explain to me how equalization works and how it was the fault of the NDP that BC was in the "have-not" club.
For bonus points use your own words and not a google link.
And finally, explain how it was that Sask under the NDP joined the "have" club.
Frank
4 years ago
happy
Because after all I'm sincerely interested in how it was that Harcourt and Clark destroyed the BC economy and Romanow and Calvert built the Sask economy.
What exactly did Clark do that other premiers in other provinces didn't do? And what was it that Campbell did that other premiers in other provinces didn't do?
And since Alberta would be the only "have" province if oil and gas revenue were fully counted within the formula why is it you think that all the other 9 provinces are welfare cases?
Doesn't seem to matter whether they're governed by the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives all other 9 provinces are "have-nots" IF Alberta's energy revenues were being fully counted, which they are not, and why not, one might ask?
Bobby Peru
4 years ago
Tyee is so left biased
I wonder what would happen if any staffer at Tyee would seek to contradict the global warming opinion and seek alternate views from credible sources and scientists who say that it's not a man or carbon dioxide made disaster. Rather it's just another political movement by environmentalists who are looking for their next gravy train? Would he or she be burned at the stake as a heretic?
I'm not saying that I ever assumed Tyee was supposed to be a balanced media site, but allowing for some intelligent dissent would enhance its credibility instead of acting as an echo chamber for the left. Or don't tell me, any one in BC who dissents is either a right wing fanatic or even worse, American?
The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation is not ANTI-TAX, but a watchdog for all tax paying Canadians. It seeks to point out govt waste and counterproductive taxation. It's not against taxes, per se.
I wouldn't count out our capitalist system in the current subprime mortgage crisis. Anyone who knows anything about banking will know that the US system is designed for resolving these financial crises. The Latin American debt crisis was far worse.
And oil- the markets and the economy will adjust to that too. No need for these left wing, 'Omega Man' and 'Soylent Green' visions (my homage to Charlton Heston).
No wonder the left and NDP have so much trouble with public credibility. Ardent NDP followers still think Glen Clark did a great job and all the malaise we suffered in the 90s was a right wing media conspiracy. If Clark was such a swell Premier how come the unions didn't save his butt. Instead, it was your worst enemy Jim Pattison who mercifully gave Clark a job. Without Pattison's handout, Clark would have been a destitute, ex-premier. Oh, the irony.
And yes, despite the left's hatred of the 'rich' and desire to make them pay for carbon, the simple fact is that it's working and middle class families that will suffer the most.
happy
4 years ago
In my own words for Frank
Eqaulization - Provinces that pay more into the fund than they receive are referred to as "Haves"
Provinces that receive more than put in the fund are called "Have Nots". I never implied poverty or welfare cases. Your words.
Sask became a "Have" for the same reason it is always pointed here out by some that BC did - increasing commodity prices.
Re Harcourt and Clark wrecking the economy. You forgot Miller and Dosanjh. I liked Miller for his plain speaking, rare in a politician, but he helped blow 500 mil keeping an obsolete pulp mill running. It would have been cheaper to pay the employees to stay home. Its true. And I didn't mind Uncle Mike, but I blame him fully for resigning and letting young Glen get his hands in the cookie jar. The rest is history and well documented. No need to open all those old wounds for you Frank. Dosanjh was a non factor seat warmer, all I remeber of him was his Pakistani Victory Tour (oops, I meant Trade Mission) before the election wipe out.
As for the differences between the present Govt and the previous that would stimulate or depress an economy, start with punitve taxation policies and unbalanced labour laws to name a couple
Did I earn the bonus points?
Frank
4 years ago
happy
The following has absolutely no bearing on equalization :
Did you think it did?
Actually it isn't "well documented" or those I've debated this subject with over the years would have been able to back up the slogans.
So how come those policies didn't work in the other provinces? After all, EVERY province except Alberta is a have-not when Alberta's full oil and gas revenue are included. Why is that? Are the other 9 provinces just badly run? Albertans believe so.
So in other words you're retracting your view that the NDP wrecked the economy and turned us into a "have-not"?
Well, I don't know. You might just be in a hurry which is why you didn't flesh out your replies or you don't know. I'm not sure which it is yet.
Here's a couple of slogans for you in return :
1. BC taxpayers under the NDP were on the hook for less money than they are under the Liberals. That's a thought that is not based on a formula few understand but is instead a simple fact.
2. Health care outcomes were better under the NDP than under the liberals.
3. Homelessness is higher under the Liberals than under the NDP.
I could go on but I think you've already stopped reading the list.
See what I mean?
Frank
4 years ago
Bobby Peru
This is a great quote. It'll be fun posting this again in a few years when you're declaring that the Left is what stood in the way of fixing the problem, that all you guys on the Right knew it was a problem from the getgo.
No, just laughed out of the office.
Being an echo chamber for the Right hasn't seem to have hurt Can-West's papers. Well okay it has. Circulation is down and their flagship paper is bleeding money.
Actually I think any right-winger who thinks of himself as some great "dissenter" because he stands on the same side of the line as all major media up against a small website is delusional and suffers from a paranoia complex. But if you want to say "fanatic" instead that's okay.
And its members move in and out of the Conservative party. But continue to believe its not another political organ like the Fraser boys etc if you want to.
Anyone except economists who have written numerous articles saying the opposite.
In the past you've declared yourself against "too much democracy". Apparently you also believe that its great when political leaders move smoothly from public office to corporate directorships. Its corruption in my opinion.
happy
4 years ago
Frank
Your twisting around everything I wrote. I didn't say Miller had anything to do with eqaulization. That comment was under the Wrecking The Economy line. See it now?
Re Glen. Since you are one of the extreme few who still cling to the belief he was doing a fantastic job why don't you just list for us all his great accomplishments instead. Easier that way. Don't forget about Pakistani power plant get rich quick schemes for NDP insiders only, or pulling land out of the ALR for a golf course. How very Liberal don't you agree?
Your other points:
BC debt highr now than under NDP. True. Much needed infrastructure improvements (hospitals, roads, bridges, ferries) are being built now that were ignored in the 90's, with the exception of an overpriced Island highway.
Health care outcomes better? Sure. Back then. Its just a bad situation getting worse in every province these days isn't it. But lets not change the system. Just needs more money, on top of the extra billions it already gets anually. How would the NDP get a handle on that?
Homelessness higher. Your right again. But so's the general population by quite a bit as people are moving to this province again rather than leaving in despair. A signifigant percentage of the homeless come from out of province cause if your gonna be homeless, BC's the place to be.
You got one thing right, I was in a hurry as I am now and have to run. Over to you for last rant and see you guys next week maybe. Have one on me.
Frank
4 years ago
happy
In other words you weren't able to access any of that "well documented" history of his wrecking the economy?
Do you also think Bill Bennett wrecked the BC economy back in the early 80's?
Yes it is true. The Liberals are running up our debt. You say its because they're buying things, that is also true. Doesn't make someone a great money manager to run up debt though regardless of how many toys they have in their yard.
Yes, health outcomes have gotten worse under the Liberals in spite of their usual tactic of attacking unions, using private contractors and throwing money at them. Apparently the NDP managed health care better in trying times for health care in this country as transfer payments were cut and if they were in power I think outcomes would once again improve due to their better understanding and management of that particular portfolio.
Yes homeless has increased under the Liberals. And you believe its because the weather in BC is warmer now than it was under the NDP. Somehow the BC NDP wrecked the economy but homelessness is higher now. Just one more area the NDP did a better job in.
My rant? It was you that out of nowhere ranted about Clark and BC NDP wrecking the economy. I'm simply responding to your rant, there is a difference.
Frank
4 years ago
Equalization
You didn't mention this subject again, I'll assume we agree that Alberta is the only real "have" province.