ME2

ME2 - How is name-calling and obscure vitriolic references to Karl Rove, "warmies", "greenies", pencil sharpeners and collateral damage in the Iraq war relevant to carbon pricing? Through his foggy 2am rhetoric, ME2 appears to be arguing against all policy tools that are not blunt regulation, while at the same time implying that having industry "crying like a baby" is a standard for sound public policy.

Absurdly, ME2 seems to think that effective command-and-control regulation, monitoring and enforcement of society's carbon emissions entails no government costs or bureaucracy.

And then there is the classic ignorance of the CAP in "cap and trade". Does ME2 think that a hard CAP cannot be set at a strict level and then regulated? Of course it can. If it cannot be, then there is no hope for any regulation in the first place. ME2, go do your homework. Seriously. Try reading something by the Pembina Institute or the Center for Policy Alternatives. You are simply not credible.

And Dermot

That line about elections not being a place for a serious policy debate sounds an awful lot to me like Kim Campbell's death knell.

It is simply not true - but Dion's carbon shift was the kind of nightie that none of the voters found either attractive or well-sized to their needs.

People will respond to challenges - but that requires leadership and honesty.

We haven't had any from either Dion, Campbell or Harper...

The potential for a consensus between the other 78% of the voters IS there - but your friend Dion nixed the idea at least twice - as did Rae and Ignatieff - during the campaign.

Who did you ask? When?

Dermot

... The NDP relied on tried and true tactics to deep six a policy which almost everyone, including Jack Layton, who considers climate change as a serious problem, believes is necessary. Even the provincial NDP anti-tax campaign, recognizes that carbon taxes are necessary. Just ask them. I did.

Who did you ask? When?

August, 2008, the NDP

August, 2008, the NDP Environment Critic,Shane Simpson.

I don't believe you, Dermot

Dermot

August, 2008, the NDP Environment Critic,Shane Simpson.

What did Simpson actually tell you, Dermot? Was this a private, oral conversation? Was it a letter in reply to one of your's?

An e-mail.

Why do you ask?

Produce the Email, Dermot, ... if it exists!

Dermot

Why do you ask?

I don't believe you, Dermot. If you have such an Email, why not copy it to these pages in its entirety so that we can all read what Simpson actually said to you, if indeed any such communication ever occured.

This routine of your's reminds me of those "news items" which quote unnamed sources to the effect of one thing or another. I have to give you credit, Dermot, you've been very innovative, very progressive. You've raised this approach to manipulating voters to a much higher level, by providing an actual name to the person who supposedly told you such and so.

But, without the actual text of this supposed message it's still a cleverly pre-meditated bluff, as anyone can plainly see.

Happy now Bud?

Happy now Bud?

Dermot, Brad taught you well

EDITED FOR PERSONAL INSULTS AND UNPROVABLE ACCUSATIONS. PLEASE STICK TO SUBSTANCE, AND STAY AWAY FROM IMPUGNING THE CHARACTER OF FELLOW POSTERS. TYEE MODERATOR

Atom, you're right

If you look around at the other threads, it's always the same few guys ranting and getting personal.

I suspect they are either Conservative trolls, as you suggest, or extremely bitter un/under-employed guys with too much time on their hands.

Bud

I think you are getting a bit frustrated with your line of argument. As in you are aguing with yourself, Bud. You can just go back and read the whole thread, if you want to see what I actually said, instead of reproducing select pieces for your own ammusement.
And yes, the NDP supports carbon taxes. Plain and simple.

Who the heck is Brad?

Which carbon taxes, Dermot?

Dermot, which carbon taxes does the NDP support? The model prefered by the provincial Liberal government, the type prefered by your federal Liberals, or a third model altogether?

I trust you realize there was a great difference between the two Liberal models in terms of the treatment of gasoline taxes. The provincial Liberal approach is to add to the existing road taxes, while the proposed Federal Liberal "Green Shift" as promulgated by Stephane Dion was much more cheeky and sassy. Just take the existing federal excise tax on gas and declare it to be the "carbon tax" with no increase in prices! Voila!

Dion's totally cynical scheme was intended to let him have his enviromental cake and eat his populist needs too. It was a really clever scam in theory, but somehow it came up short in electoral practice.

'Brad' would be a reference to the communications boss for the Liberal Party of Canada in BC. The man who made no apologies for his "research" into NDP candidates which helped to set such an intellectually sophisticated tone for the campaign, out of respect for the scholarly Dion and the type of dialogue he truly wanted to have with Canadians.

Since you're a student of these policies, Dermot, tell me this. In your opinion, should primary production be taxed, or only consumption within the jurisdiction?

Tom Barrett ignores reality, prefers his hobby-horse

The new WC calendars have arrived at our house and lo and behold there's environmental problems in BC in spite of the existence here of a carbon tax.

The "Wilderness" one has on its March page a call to save the rivers of BC from Campbell. Apparently the WC doesn't think moving 80-90% of the annual discharge of a river through a pipe for several kilometres is good for the environment that river supports.

Enviros that love Campbell's carbon tax disagree of course. They say rivers are not as important as a tax on suburbanites' gasoline.

On the June page ("Sacred Headwaters") the WC seems to be upset that Campbell is allowing Shell to develop a 412,000 hectare coalbed methane operation that will devastate salmon, cause erosion, sedimentation, and deplete aquifiers as well as introduce toxins into the area's pristine environment.

But again, this isn't important to Liberal enviros. After all, two terms of pro-carbon-tax and pro-fish-farms government has been enough to reduce salmon to the point there's no salmon fishing anyway.

Of course there was also a report last week about how 1/4 of mammals are facing extinction, mainly due to loss of habitat. Here in BC we have an ex-developer as premier whose government has seen fit to build resorts and condos on land that was either in the ALR or untouched. But regulations are easily bypassed in the name of development under this gov't.

To me it seems so-called enviros don't care about the environment at all, what they care about instead is hurting drivers in the pocketbook while enjoying lower taxes themselves.

Makes sense, those who hate cars and want a tax break should vote Liberal. Those who actually care about the real environment won't.

Good point, Frank. Try telling Charlie Smith that!

You're right on, there's not just one single environmental issue. But try telling that to opinion makers like Charlie Smith at The Straight.

Not my Liberals

First of all they are not my Liberals. Secondly, I don't have a clue who Brad is. Third my opinons on the array of economic instruments that should be used for addressing climate change are here:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Publications/Climate_Crisis_Energy_Solutions_for_BC.asp
and here:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/CNDsolutionsNEW.pdf

I worked on both of these reports with Gerry Scott, who is now the point man for the NDP on the anti-tax file. Ironic, isn't it?

Not quite sure what your point is Dermot

The question here is whether or not the Campbell Tax will do anything positive and there is absolutely no evidence that it will.

Furthermore, as the little cartoon at the helm of this article shows, trying to put lipstick on a pig is a frustrating and pointless thing to do. The esthetician – Campbell in this case – just looks foolish in the process.

I would be willing to bet you that when Gordon Campbell calls Jessica McDonald at 2 am these days that one of the things that's keeping him from a sound sleep is the fact that this little money laundering scheme has blown up so badly in his face.

I know a university student who got the latest low-income supplement of the carbon tax with his GST return earlier this month..he tells me it won't even pay for 1/4 of a credit at UVic...and he doesn't OWN a car.

The whole thing is utterly laughable and about as embarrassing as the Premier's sojourn in a Maui jail for god's sake.

If the NDP weren't all over this mess they would not have ANY credibility as a replacement to this character.

And, in my view, all of the so-called environmentalists who've gotten into bed with him look as ridiculous as Campbell did when he donned spandex for his pandering bike ride with Lance Armstrong a year ago.

Dermont...

Surprise, surprise!

...participated in this report calling for:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/CNDsolutionsNEW.pdf

The same Gerry Scott that headed the BC NDP federal campaign!!!

Dermot, while I personally believe that alot of these climate proposals represent "social engineering", the NDP seems to be more engaged in "politics" than "public policy" and it's apparent that alot of "green" New Democrats are turned off by their "Axe the Tax" campaign here in BC.

Especially when the NDP wants its own carbon taxes that also "will cost the consumer".

I don't know how the NDP is gonna reconcile that one.

Social engineering

You've got to be kidding - that's what Gordon's Tax is. And that's why it's a farce - because the revenue from the tax is just being spun out again at the end of each fiscal year.

DO a little research into Arthur Pigou and his theories man.

BC NDP and the Carbon Tax

Looks like Carole is at it again today.

http://nid-18035.newsdetail.bcndp.ca/

Again politics, not public policy. Any political capital on that matter has now likely been expended in any event.

With gas prices already down around 33% from their early July peak in some places (Abbotsford - 99.9 cents/litre) and oil prices still dropping:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24526609-664,00.html

The market itself has taken care of lower gas prices. Way to go Carole!

And At the BC Leader's Debate...

I can see an exchange like this:

James: The NDP wants to remove the (2.4 cents/litre) carbon tax to help protect BC families.

Campbell: Then how do you explain the NDP's climate action strategy that states all NDP proposals "will cost consumers"?

James: I dunno.

Campbell: And what will be the actual cost to consumers?

James: I dunno.

Picture it if ya can. ;)

"where my, and my family's' carbon footprint is minimal"

"As to Latte drinking urbanites: I prefer tea, but do live downtown, where my, and my family's' carbon footprint is minimal."

LOL! Dermot, this is just personal self-advertising, a personal political branding statement.

But Dermot

I know what it is based on - I've read every line of both Bill 37 and the Regulation - I know what counts, what doesn't, who's excluded and how the calculations are done - I also know where the economic theory came from and precisely why it's faulty.

This tax will not influence purchasing decisions because of the economic principle that some goods are subject to inelastic demand.

Gasoline and home heating oil, natural gas and diesel are those kinds of goods.

If there were going to be a significant decline based on price it would have been motivated by the huge increase in the cost of fuels over the past 6 months...some marginal (1 - 2.5%) change took place because of those enormous increases in price - but no significant effect has been seen under those conditions. From an economic point of view the suggestion that a gradual increase to 7c/litre will do so over the next three years is risible.

Had the revenue from the tax been put to some decent and progressive use you and I wouldn't be arguing - it hasn't happened and the result is before you.

A failure both in terms of motivation and in terms or political effect.

This is a bad policy and anyone who attacks it, as it presently stands, is on the side of the angels.

And that really is it - I'm done. If positive effect on the environment was the objective this kind of manipulative elitist stuff WAS not the way to go.

Ordinary people, workers and their wives, commuters and people who'd like to take transit, know the difference.
And you don't need a spin doctor to tell you that.

In my view - and thanks for keeping it respectful - that, on this subject, doesn't happen often.

Dermot, don't waste your energy

I think you've been admirably patient and gentlemanly. But there comes a time...

G West

The economic theory is sound. Some things are in-elastic, some are not. The way an environmental tax works effectively is through its predictability and influence over purchases that make a difference. It's less about the purchase of fuel, per se than it is about the purchase of the automobile or furnace, as major users of fuel. People don't use fuel, appliances do. That's where the tax will influence purchasing decisions. And yes there are numerous other ways to influence those decisons, through rebates and regulations. We need all of these influences working together.

In Germany in the 1970's the government developed the "Effluent Discharge Fees Law" through a consensus design involving industry, labour unions and government. The effluent taxes were set to increase at specific increments over a period of five years. Each level of increase was known and predicatable. As a result industrial operations could decide to pay the fee until such a time as it became economic to make major changes. One could argue that heavy industry is pretty in-elastic. Yet the policy worked and Germany successfully reduced effluent discharge pollution.

This was not a revenue neutral policy, however some of the collected fees were set aside for research and technological improvement to gain further environmental benefits.

The David Suzuki Foundation has an interesting position on carbon pricing as well:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/Climate/BC/DSF-BN-Carbon-Pricing-June08.pdf

The problem for the NDP, now, is that they have hobbled themselves in regard to their future policy options. The Campbell tax needs some fixes for sure, but the current political campaign is not about fixing, it's about eliminating and ultimately closing the door on environmental tax policy. "ax the tax"

As I noted in my earlier rant, my fear is that the party is losing its environmentally progrssive supporters and going backwards.

Dermot and Saysme

You should vote Liberal. You'll get a tax break while people who can't afford to live downtown will pay more to commute whether by car or transit.

I believe you guys call that "smart taxation" since it means you'll pay less.

And I totally disagree

Pigovian Taxes have been discredited repeatedly - the fact some economists and the David Suzuki foundation re-discovered them notwithstanding.

But, as I said earlier I don't care what you call the tax or what it attempts to cost - the fact that it is revenue neutral and does nothing positive is the real test - Would you put up with a sales tax that the government turned around and refunded at the end of the year to its special friends? I strongly suggest you would not and you'd be damn mad the government cared so little for your money.

The NDP is not closing the door to finding ways to actually address the environment - they could start by cancelling the fire-sale oil leases that Campbell has given to exploration companies in the interior for a start and get the hell out of the 'Gateway' idiocy next.

They should use tax revenue to encourage through either financing or grants the conversion of work trucks to natural gas and they should begin to actually respond to transit needs rather than make a commitment to do so sometime 'after' 2010.

There's a fellow called Grumpy who posts here who could give you a lot more details of that nature in terms of spelling out what’s wrong with transit policy and funding.

But for God's sake don't invent any more regressive taxation that hits poor people and working people and lets the Merc and Bimmer drivers laugh on their way to the bar.

And don't pretend that this is really revenue neutral - one thing the legislation leaves out is a calculation to include the costs of administration which are, trust me, enormous.

I just happened to talk to someone from the Finance Ministry this afternoon and folks there are VERY concerned about the fact that the exchequer is running out of cash.

And also, while you're at it, have a look at some more bad news on the environmental front from tomorrow's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/business/21energy.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print

And no, I think the people who have harmed their credibility are folks like David - who say just in front of me at UVic's graduation ceremonies a year and a half ago, I like him a lot – and Andrew Weaver and Mark Jaccard.

Getting into bed with Campbell was a stupid and short-sighted thing for any of them to do; just as it would have been to get into bed with any other political party.

Independence is priceless. And once you've lost it your credibility is gone forever.

errata

That's 'sat' just in front of me above here

Pigovean Taxes

The problem with Pigovean taxes is that they were meant as a source of revenue and a means of pricing externalities. They were not revenue neutral and, to my limited knowledge, were never implemented. I won't try to read into or assume I know what your solutions to the greenhouse gas and climate problem are, but Pigovean taxes are not high on anyone's list.

As to whether Suzuki, Jaccard and Weaver made the right or wrong political choices, I have been around long enough to see Jaccard and Suzuki support NDP policies at press conferences, as well. Do I think they should just blindly support the NDP or the Liberals. No way. But I respect both of them for their integrity and their intelligence.
I also have fundamental disagreements with Jaccard and Weaver on technology and policy issues, but I don't believe they are mindless dupes or naive academics. Each is involved in climate policy and they see the necessity to get on with solving the problem. That's what's so frustrating.

Everyone wants to wait for the perfect one shot policy, like a tax or other magic bullet and I'm sorry to inform you that it's going to take a lot more than that: it will take a genuine collaborative consensus to get the type of changes which are required.

And that's the problem

Weaver and Jaccard and, for all I know, David, got suckered - they gave Campbell what he wanted - green credibility without any green responsibility.

A one shot wonder that never had a chance of succeeding.

Unfortunately, they should have known what kind of guy they were dealing with.

Look Dermot, I know all about the presentation copies of the cover page of Bill 37 - the ones printed specially on heavy bond suitable for framing with the handwritten personal message from the Finance Minister about the 'chance' to do something good that only comes along once in a lifetime above her signature....
- the ones presented to all the people involved with the bill in that crazy two or three month period after the decision was made

But the thing is, I also know the minister never even saw the Regulation before it was presented to her for signature....this was a put up job from the beginning.

I am certain that the decision to go with the Campbell Tax was made in haste at the beginning of this year; it was Campbell's baby from the beginning and there was never any question of it being a result of any kind of consensus. It was foisted on the rest of the government holus bolus – like most everything it was the Premier’s baby.

The revenue neutrality was a pandering gimmick because Campbell's pollsters told him people wouldn't pay for the costs of addressing climate change - I think you know that too Dermot.

Just like the 'road to Damascus' change in the Premier's attitude toward treaty settlements - he reacts only and always to the people he owes his allegiance to.
Corporate BC told him to make a deal - especially in areas where native land claims had financial implications for them....elsewhere? Not so much.

If you are as close to the action as you purport to be, you know that's the way it is.

Weaver, Suzuki and the rest were snookered but the people, thank god, weren't.

Always remember that this is the political realm we’re talking about here and, in this province, we have a premier who has all the characteristics of a sociopath – in my opinion….a man who will use anyone for his own selfish purposes…and this Bill is a signal example of that.

Anyway, as I said earlier - I really don't have time for any more of this....and, my reading, the people of British Columbia don't either. That’s it.

An Unnatural Position...

Dermont:

The carbon tax could typically be categorized as a progressive environment position that one would identify with the NDP... Not with the centre-right.

Unfortunately, the spin-meisters within the BC NDP, in an attempt to gain some political traction in the province, decided to tap into popular opinion when gas prices soared toward $1.50/litre to deal with public frustration.

The NDP's centre-right "Axe the Tax" campaign was an unnatural position for the party especially based upon voter perceptions.

Furthermore, they did not tell the public about their own contradicting climate positions that will also "cost consumers".

A more intelligent (both politically and policy-wise) position would have had the NDP agree with the carbon tax (a natural party position) but defer same due to surging gas prices in the Spring.

A win-win NDP position covering all bases.

Now, however, the NDP has painted themselves in a corner politically and it seems that they have not grasped "it" yet.

Yeah, there is already some anecdotal evidence regarding same from the federal election:

The demographics of those "environmentally conscious voters in the West End" are likely younger, environmentally-conscious, lower-income renters.

While they might not vote Liberal in 2008, the Greens may well be the beneficiary and see their overall provincial vote increase from 10% in 2005 to the high-teens overall in BC during May, 2008.

Cheesy op-ed pieces

Dermot
"As to whether Suzuki, Jaccard and Weaver made the right or wrong political choices, I have been around long enough to see Jaccard and Suzuki support NDP policies at press conferences, as well. Do I think they should just blindly support the NDP or the Liberals. No way. But I respect both of them for their integrity and their intelligence."

When Jaccard was chair of the BC Utilities Commission during the NDP's term in office, they did not have him writing cheesy op-ed pieces slamming then Opposition Leader Gordon Campbell as "dishonest".

With the benefit of hindsight, I guess that's a good thing for M K Jaccard and Associates, eh Dermot?

All this hot air

The posts above are quite revealing. The way decent, considerate and informed posters have been wrongfully accused, insulted and kicked around by the usual bullies is disgusting.

Unfortunately, it's symptomatic of much of the partisan discourse in old-guard pessimistic and stubborn circles.

Fortunately, it's symptomatic of the psyche of a vocal minority.

I come here for opinion or debate, not to watch a fight.

Van centre

Van Centre shows exactly how palletable the NDP position is: Ignoring 2006 when Svend ran, in 2004 the NDP got 32 per cent, the Liberals 40, the Cons 19. This time the NDP got 21, the Libs 34 and the Cons 25. So where did the 17 per cent from the Libs and the NDP go? Hedy lost 6 to the Cons and all the NDP vote (11 per cent)went Green.

So you can curse the naive environmentalists or just wake up to the fact that the NDP is failing, and I repeat failing, to offer anything of substance on the climate change issue. I worked on Jack Layton's and Carol James leadership campaigns, and to me the federal and provincial positions are a total disappointment. Jack spent years writing about climate change and has done nothing remotely innovative, even when he had the balance of power with the Martin minority.

I believe that Suzuki, Jaccard and Weaver went out on a limb to support a good policy initiative. Who cares whether Campbell is the instigator or not. It's a good start. As I said before, the debate seems to be more about Campbell than the carbon tax. Let's see how the by-elections play out. Of course the spin doctors will discount them both as they are not the "REAL" BC, where real men work,just more urban know-nothings, and naive enviro's like myself.

Dermot: No discussion of carbon taxes in DSF pieces

Dermot:

One of your previous posts contained two links to three DSF pieces:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Publications/Climate_Crisis_Energy_Solutions_for_BC.asp
and here:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/CNDsolutionsNEW.pdf

As to the first link, the executive summary it links to contains no reference to carbon taxes and the full report doesn't either. It does mention diesel and gas tax hikes.

The second link brings up a report that mentions carbon taxes three times. It doesn't discuss them in any detail, and the reference to Scandavian carbon tax regimes is so utterly perfunctory as to be simply a one line mention. It's essentially what would have been called pamphleteer material in the 19th Century.

Dermot: How many times have I heard claims like this?

Dermot
"I worked on Jack Layton's and Carol James leadership campaigns, and to me the federal and provincial positions are a total disappointment."

Really? How many times have I heard claims like this from people who obviously regard the NDP with complete contempt?

When Jack Layton spoke at our riding association's BBQ last summer he was asked about this. He said the NDP caucus in Ottawa had looked at the matter and decided that a carbon tax was not on balance preferable to a cap and trade system. He allowed that carbon taxes were prefered by the oil companies and what he called "right wing economists".

Budd...

Did ya read it??? ;)

Sounds like BC's carbon tax, n'est pas??? :)

Another interesting tidbit:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/CNDsolutionsNEW.pdf

Didn't G West yesterday state in another thread that people in the Scandinavian countries are the happiest??? :)

Fireside chats

Gordon Campbell is going to address the people of BC wensday night.

This new personna of Campbell is nauseating,you all have heard the ads,this new personna is " I want your input,we are all in it together,the goverment needs advice on what tax cuts to give BCers"

Apparently on wensday Campbell will tell us what goverment and the people can do to get through this tough economic time.

The smoke and mirrors economy of BC has been failing for 5 years now!
Campbell will use this opening to deflect his incompetance on the economy.

Wensday when Campbell cancels the carbon tax or halts it`s rise to 8 cents a litre.

Will it make headlines,yes it will, how will Jaccard,Weaver,Suzuki, and those other 200 economists that are promoting carbon taxes handle it?
Will they turn on Campbell? Will they go back to fighting real enviromental issues?

Fish farms,Gateway,run of river,SFPR,gravel extraction,park protection,species on the endangered list,the ALR,the greenbelt etc etc etc.

And what of Campbell`s speeches, "This is the fight of our lives,we owe it to our grandchildren,I couldn`t sleep at night if our goverment didn`t do evrything we can to save the planet"

Of course he would have to cancel his Carbon tax,tax cuts,how would the newspapers play it?
Does Campbell say because of low polling his grand children are out of luck?

Just how does Campbell back out of the carbon tax without looking like the (con man) he is?

Personally I am glad Campbell is going to do backflips on the (planet saving tax) but it won`t help his poll numbers.

With Campbell 12 points back in the polls I know he is squirming.

You heard it here first,a little birdie told me!

P.S. With the head of OPEC slashing production of oil --2 to 3 million barrels of oil a day or more,whatever it takes to get the price back over a hundred dollars a barrell. cheers

Nope

This is what I said:

Why don't you check out where the happiest people in the world are luke - you might be surprised and it'll keep you busy for a minute or so.

Since you haven't taken the trouble to look yourself, I'll provide the necessary link:

www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/dl44k145g5scuy453044gqbu11072006194758.pdf

Cheap gas, not for long,sorry Luke Skywalker

Opec has taken a liking to 147 $ a barrell oil!

If you wonder where the price of oil is going?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27251496

Budd...

Some people view the NDP with contempt... yes, due to the left-wing elements within the party (what Doer gets away with in Manitoba could never happen here with the BC NDP).

That said, moderate small "l" liberal provincial New Democrats here in BC are certainly respected outside party lines.

Former Premier Harcourt - supports the Port Mann Bridge twinning/ Hwy 1 widening "as the horse has left the barn door" long ago and it only "makes common sense".

Former Premier Miller even stated today that he supports "offshore oil and natural gas drilling" off BC's coast:

http://www.oilweek.com/news.asp?ID=19174

Heck, I also support these same positions but the federal/provincial NDP calls them "right-wing" and opposes 'em. Go figure! I would bet Manitoba NDP Premier Doer would also agree with both Harcourt and Miller on these policy stances.

G West...

Ya don't have to lie, for crying out loud!!! ROFLMAO

Here's your exact statement:

As of now, it's the 14th last post in this thread to which I responded to! LOL

http://thetyee.ca/Life/2008/10/17/Riskers/

No lies - ever

I also wrote what I posted just above you'll find it on that same thread - the one with the picture of Connie Black at the top it was an exact copy of what I wrote about the happiness index; however, - in the list of western countries, I think you'll find Denmark is number 1:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113093726.htm

I never lie - but you aren't capable of handling complexity.

Here's the top 20 countries that might mean something to you:

The 20 happiest nations in the World are:

1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Austria
4. Iceland
5. The Bahamas
6. Finland
7. Sweden
8. Bhutan
9. Brunei
10. Canada
11. Ireland
12. Luxembourg
13. Costa Rica
14. Malta
15. The Netherlands
16. Antigua and Barbuda
17. Malaysia
18. New Zealand
19. Norway
20. The Seychelles

Please note tha Denmark, Finland and Sweden are all Scandinavian countries and all three score higher than Canada...

next question.

As I said yesterday, you're out of your depth.

G West...

Best to repost from the other thread:

G West:

Happy In BC... :)

Mustel Poll, BC Happiness Index, from August, 2006:

Q.1) On a scale of 1-10, where 10 means being most happy, how happy are you?

10: 17%
9: 16%
8: 32%
7: 15% --Total Downward to 7 Level- 80%
6: 9%
5: 6%
4: 2%
3: 1%
2: 1%
1: 1%

Average BC Happy Score: 7.8

Not tooooooo shabby!!!

I'm one of 'em. You obviously unfortunately aren't. :(

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/a498hs_jha.pdf

Means nothing

As I already pointed out, Canadians are less happy than Scandinavians.

QED

And, as I already said

You just can't help but be personal and offensive, can you?

You have no idea how utterly happy making you look ridiculous makes me feel.

egmont rapids

Yeah, sounds like thay have an intelligent way of moving forward in terms of accelerated infrastructure development:

Nevertheless, I am quite impressed with Carole James response thereto: ;)

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c97c474f-9af9-4a6f-a4f1-730d6556ef44

Carbon scam

I had hoped that while we would certainly get militarism with Harper, at least we wouldn't have to put up with "global warming" nonsense. I add I did NOT vote for them.

Did anybody catch this today?

Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
EXCERPT
"Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."

While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

Luke Skywalker: Some people view the NDP with contempt...

Luke Skywalker

Some people view the NDP with contempt... yes, due to the left-wing elements within the party (what Doer gets away with in Manitoba could never happen here with the BC NDP).

Liberals hated Glen Clark not because he was on the left, he wasn't, as his subsequent business career has proven conclusively. They hated him because he was a former union organizer and, what is more, came from a working class home, and from a Catholic working class home at that. They regarded him as a threat to their base, and they hated him for it.

Budd...

And those are also exactly my roots. Big deal!

And likely only ~5% of BC'ers even know that. The other 95% either didn't know or couldn't care less.

Oh come on Budd. Glen Clark was the NDP's version to the left to what Bill Vander Zalm was to the right. Both populist on their respective left/right ends of the political spectrum and both eventually alienated the middle-ground.

Both idolized by the media in the period prior to their respective provincial elections (1986 and 1996).

Both were then later pilloried by the media for their arrogant and bizarre excesses.

And both caused the destruction of their respective political parties.

Clark was no small "l" liberal like Harcourt, Miller, or Dosanjh.

Sheesh, Harcourt started off in great form in October 1991, but the NDP went off track when his then finance minister, Glen Clark, tabled a provincial budget in the spring of 1993 inclusive of capital gains taxes on homes in the City of Vancouver valued over $500,000.

And who owned 'em??? Many working-class retired seniors who purchased 'em for a proverbial song way back in the day.

And there began the huge outcry and the NDP began to plunge downward in the polls thereafter, with the exception of Clark's fluke blip in the 1996 election, where the NDP still lost the popular vote.

Same with Vander Zalm's business career. What's the diff???

Both were either left/right wing populists.

Pattison liked the guy's spunk. Didn't care for his politics and it obviously didn't matter. Spunk (not arrogance) and drive are always appreciated in a business setting (inclusive of intelligence). I know.

McAllister Polling Firm - Tieleman

Bill, thanks for letting us know about the connections involved.

I have the distinct feeling that carbon tax advocates, such as author Barrett, believe they are supporting a cause so important that obeying the rules is for sissies and half-wits.

Dermot Comes Across As The Advance Guard

Dermot, you come across as one of Campbell's advance guards for the coming election. Not as a "naive enviro".

Angus

No problem - just start telling the truth about the Campbell Tax and its utter uselessness as anything but a pander to a pointless vision of environmentalism.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized, decent, cultured society - they should not be used for money-laundering purposes and to pump up the image of the worst premier this province has had in the last 80 odd years.

The promoters of this scam, whether paid for or working gratis, are as guilty as its author.

If you want to be recognized for excellent work, start telling the truth about what the vast majority of actual British Columbians think of this shell game.

They like the so called 'shell game'

when asked whether they supported the idea of a carbon tax on businesses and people based on the carbon emissions they generate, 61 per cent of poll respondents said yes and 32 per cent said no.

Respondents in every province and age category expressed support for the idea, including oil-rich Alberta where 65 per cent of those surveyed backed the notion.

Support levels grew significantly – to as high as 80 per cent ...

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/422643

Angus: That bit about Ayers, ...

angus mcallister

(1) We have not yet served on any boards with Bill Ayers or any member of the Weathermen.
(2) I do not beat my wives, children, slaves or kittens.

That bit about Ayers isn't really at all funny as far as I am concerned. Maybe Dermot thinks it's a million laughs, but I don't. Also, I am assuming that the use of the plural of wife in the second point was just a typo. It was just a typo, wasn't it angus?

On the issue of climate change policies, is it the opinion of yourself and your firm that the policies of Premier Gordon M. Campbell are world leading initiatives that are so good as to be above meaningful criticism? Do you think the criticisms that the BC NDP has made of those policies have any merit, and additionally, do you think they have any traction with the voters you have surveyed?

Green Tax Poison

Any fraudulent tax is a political poison. Smart governments of Japan, China, India, US and all the Middle Eastern countries would not sign Kyoto Treaty, as normal warming or cooling of the Earth, has nothing to do with human activities. Corrupted UN officials who stole billions from Food for Oil scam, want to get fed again. Canadian taxes as proposed by sponsorgate's Martin and bad English Dion, were suppose to enrich Paribas bank and Russian Oligarchs. Russia is claiming to be less polluting and should be on the receiving end of taxes from more civilized countries. They try to forget about Chernobyl and millions of people who died prematurely because of incompetent experiment with Soviet atomic bombs in Kazachstan.

Comments to Realisticman

They like the so called 'shell game'
realisticman

Taxing companies is a naive notion that it saves money for individuals. Proponents of it, utopian socialists, are too stupid to realize that taxing businesses raises prices for everybody, because additional costs of goods are automatically passed to the consumers. Unless you are living in Outer Mongolia, do not buy anything, do not need toilet paper or soap and a lifestyle of Dzhengis Han makes you happy.

No better alternatives

What's your point again Bill? From my perspective your point looks categorically false.

BC's Carbon tax is the most broadly scoped carbon tax in the world.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument or your bias.

Dermot: 2004 and 2006 were then, this is now

Dermot

It may be that you supported the NDP in the 2004 and 2006 federal general elections, but that was then, and this is now, or more accurately, we are now in the post-2006 world.

I would put it to you that once the Liberals lost power in 2006, BC's career environmentalists moved quite quickly from being a mixture of NDP and Liberal and Green supporters to being Liberals, period. This is a bit of an argument I have had over the past year or two with KenS of Nova Scotia who never stops expressing his disappointment with the "bunker mentality" of BC NDPers towards the ENGOs.

Immediately after the 2006 election there was the famous attempt to curry favour with the new Tory Govt by giving Brian Mulroney a "greenest PM ever" award. When that failed to produce the desired results, it was the ENGOs that went into full bunker mentality, indeed, full pillbox mentality, firing outwards at anything that appeared hostile or even just non-aligned for their purposes.

I was "reliably informed" that David Suzuki was positively apopletic when Jack Layton and Nathan Cullen announced they would work for improvements to the Clean Air Act without checking it out with him first. Suzuki and May took the position that the government should have been defeated and an immediate election held, so that the Liberals could come back to power and set the world right again. Later, when a greatly improved Act was passed, Suzuki has the unmitigated brass to appear in Ottawa to take his share of the credit.

As we move into this year we see the ENGOs in BC lining up to explicitly and even quite loudly support Premier Gordon M. Campbell. In last week's federal election the linkage between environmental organizations, climate scientists and university economists (most of whom do not specialize in environmental, let alone climate change issues) and supposed "strategic voting" websites promoting many Liberal candidates and sponsored by Liberal ministerial and caucus staffers, could not have painted a more starkly clear picture.

As I am sure you were delighted to hear, Am Johal, campaign manager for Michael Byers in Vancouver Centre, credited the carbon tax issue for sending a lot of previous NDP voters over to Adrienne Carr.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to any genuined liberal to see that Suzuki's $6 million per year foundation, with all its perks and payrolls, has been transformed over time from a group of idealists and advocates into an economic interest group with materialistic and bureaucratic objectives of its own.

"As we move into this year

"As we move into this year we see the ENGOs in BC lining up to explicitly and even quite loudly support Premier Gordon M. Campbell."

Or, just maybe, Campbell's policies are optimal from an environmental perspective and that's why ENGOs are supporting him?

"It shouldn't come as a surprise to any genuined liberal to see that Suzuki's $6 million per year foundation, with all its perks and payrolls, has been transformed over time from a group of idealists and advocates into an economic interest group with materialistic and bureaucratic objectives of its own."

What a complete load of bunk.

Dermot...cheap shots???

Now what were you saying about cheap shots, innuendo and etc...?

Because I just read this:

....the current batch of brainiacs who are dead wrong on the carbon tax.

under your handle.

It's entirely possible to disagree without that kind of thing my friend. I think You're dead wrong on the carbon tax - but I don't have to call you names to underline that conclusion. In fact, the opprobrium actually makes your case look weaker than it already is.

I think Campbell tax is a complete fraud...but that doesn't mean I think the folks who've been taken in by the Premier are anything but mistaken.

I think you'd advance your case a lot further if you recognized 'why' the vast majority of working citizens think Campbell's revenue neutral tax is about as honest as that little wrinkle he passed that deducts 10% from each cabinet minister's salary in any year their ministry runs a deficit.....

If Gordon Campbell were interested in fairness, neutrality and income redistribution he'd have increased the minimum wage five years ago and he's have never had a referendum on treaty negotiations.

I'm sorry all you nice people who care about the environment got yourself caught working with a professional con man.

But it's not too late to wake up and the treasury's is almost dry - as out criminal premier will no doubt tell us tonight.

Yeah, sure!

That'll happen.

I suppose you'd be happy with a 3% increase in the sales tax - to be spun through the treasury for a year and then refunded to the Road Builder's Association of BC to keep the deal 'revenue' neutral.

Not one gram of C02 will be captured by this nonsense tax...time to wake up and smell the fumes from those airplanes and cruise ships my friend.

errata

That should be...
'he'd never have had a referendum...'

above here.

Pembina,innovative,Angus

First off it was the way they posed the questions--

#1 Would you be in favour of a carbon tax that would reduce emissions and save the world?

Who would answere no to that question?

Now if they posed the question say like this--

#1 Would you be in favour of paying more for everything for a carbon tax that may or may not decease greenhouse gasses?

#2 Would you be in favour of a tax that gets collected,whirls around the goverment coffers then gets shuffled and sent back out to the public and the tax doesn`t have any emission targets?

#3 Would you be in favour of a tax that will cost,hospitals,schools,transit,everybody but big polluters will be exmpted such as (smelters,raw log exporters,cement industry,cruise lines,overseas flights)?

#4 Would you be in favour of a tax on the public even though most of you have no options to reduce your carbon output?

#5 Would you be in favour of a tax only on the little guy because if we did tax the big polluters they would just pass it on to you anyways?

The polls were bogus,the questions got the answere they were looking for.

I again re-iterate that the Canadian people have spoken, THE CARBON TAX IS DEAD

P.S. Luke Skywalker--The only way to fast track infrastructure is to have the province pay for it,THERE IS NO MONEY FOR THE P3 MODEL, The port mann/twin can`t get financing, P3s are failing all over the province,there is no wat to fast track infrastructure without going into defecit.

The one exception is --Unless he pays an extreme price to p3s to keep it off the books but eventualy Campbell will have to divulge the price and a price of 6 billion for the port mann project will have BCers building a "YARD ARM" cheers

Pagan: Bunk is right!

Ronald Pagan

What a complete load of bunk

I agree, Ronald, it is a complete load of bunk to suggest that people who make their career in the environmental NGO network have no personal financial or economic interests. It's like saying that professional missionaries and members of the clergy have no material stake in this life, their entire attention being occupied by the next. It's the kind of attitude that went out with the Dark Ages.

Sorry you feel that way atom

But I have to say that two posters - Luke Skywalker - and especially Budd Campbell who is everywhere

I belong to a party that gets kicked around all the time.

Atom...

Huhhhhh??? LOL

G West:

Now a reasonable person would ascertain that that foregoing statement ain't within reason.

It's psychotic!!! LOL

Not at all luke

Maybe you've forgotten this:

Average BC Happy Score: 7.8

Not tooooooo shabby!!!

I'm one of 'em. You obviously unfortunately aren't. :(

- directed to me.

Now, what were you saying about mental stability? You also left out the first part of my response to that completely uncalled for dig..

How be I post it for the information of the readers....

And, as I already said...

...You just can't help but be personal and offensive, can you?

You have no idea how utterly happy making you look ridiculous makes me feel.

I won't bother posting the utterly lame and facile remark where you suggested I'd posted a lie about Scandinavian countries and happiness - but it's there for anyone who cares to look as well.

I think atom had a very valid point.

Bwahaahahahah! Thanks for giving me another opportunity to smile my friend.

Carbon Taxes Do Not Amount

Refering to the statement: "Carbon taxes do not amount to even a band-aid on a sucking chest wound."

Effective environmental policy will be difficult if not impossible to make because the environment and the economy are in direct conflict. Tinkering like the current carbon tax and other economic approaches do more to put off what has to be done than they do to have any significant impact on fixing the problems.

Show us a graph that shows exactly how much tax reduces what exact amount of carbon emissions.

Then show us one which correlates reduction of available fuels and limits on use to reduction of GHGs from fuels.

Which of the two is likely to be more accurate?

Reducing the amount of carbon available and directly limiting its use has more certainty of achieving output goals than price fiddling.

That sounds like a religious statement. There are certainly questions. You are arguing that allowing for an unlimited supply of carbon fuels couple with price increases will reduce use more then limiting the amount of fuel available.

The fact that we are looking at it from a cost angle to start with puts us on the wrong track. With extra costs we can still increase our consumption if increasing it has a high value to us. Whereas we do not need an incentive to reduce consumption of there isn't anymore there to consume to start with.

No, they are just an inappropriate tool for the primary solution to the problem.

The cost of reduction is going to fall on everyone if it is done right. The real issue insn't dodging individual responsibility, it is creating a solution that definitively reduces carbon use regardless of economics. The secondary issue is to adjust economics to the new reality so that wealth is redistributed to protect those whose basic requirements for survival are the most threatened.

Reality check

No Significant Global Warming Since 1995
By Jarl Ahlbeck
http://www.icecap.us/ go to original for graphs.

The recovery of the earth’s climate from the little ice age started about 200 years ago, but the concentration of the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase significantly as late as in the 1950s, probably due to rapidly increased burning of fossil fuels.

The climate recovery is still an ongoing process today. A natural warming rate of roughly 0.5 deg C /100 years has been the baseline for more than 100 years, but both short (a few years) and long (20 years) fluctuations around the baseline have occurred for natural but highly speculative reasons, for example a rapid warming in the 1930s followed by a cooling period, and recently again warming until about 1998.

According to the UK climate panel IPCC, this last warming period has been forced by increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. There is however no proof of that and the theory of how carbon dioxide influences the global mean temperature is complicated and unreliable. And if the global temperature again starts to increase slower than the natural long-term trend of 0.5 deg C/100 years, or even starts to cool, we can be quite certain that the recent faster warming trends have been natural too.

A good reason to start a diagram from 1995 is that since that year no big (cooling) volcano eruptions have disturbed the temperature trend. Contrary to common belief, there has been no or little global warming since 1995 and this is shown by two completely independent datasets.

The curves look very normal and it seems probable that the natural recovery from the little ice age has went on without any significant decelerations or accelerations caused by human activity. It is impossible to say what is going to happen in the future. But so far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.

Tieleman an NDP hack!

Bill, I nearly fell over laughing at your finger pointing and suggestion of a conflict of interest. It is widely known that you are one of the biggest NDP hacks there is. Heck man… you are guest hosting one of their fundraisers this very weekend! Don't you think your readers need to know about this? You've been towing the "axe the tax" party line since day one.

Note to all progressives and forward thinkers in the NDP (if there are any left!) The real loser in this debate has been the environment. I am worried that the smear campaign launched by your party has set back concrete action on global warming for several years. I hope you keep this in mind for the next NDP leadership review so we can remove Carole James and her republican style anti-tax rhetoric once and for all. We need real leadership in this party, not someone who will attack Campbell for the one and only constructive measures he has taken since forming government.

Rambozo

So you like taxes that just spin money for a fiscal year and then spit it back out.

Addressing the problems of the environment is going to take a lot more than a Rube Goldberg perpetual motion machine that takes in 7c a litre from people with little or no choice in the matter and spits it out a year later without having built a single kilometre of Light Rail Transit, insulated a single home or converted a single working man or woman's truck to Natural Gas.

Rambozo: I am not laughing at all

Rambozo the clown
I nearly fell over laughing at your finger pointing and suggestion of a conflict of interest. It is widely known that you are one of the biggest NDP hacks there is. ... Don't you think your readers need to know about this?

As you well know, Rambozo, Bill's post included this disclosure passage:

In addition, I note the following part of your post:

... The real loser in this debate has been the environment. I am worried that the smear campaign launched by your party has set back concrete action on global warming for several years.

Can you explain how the environment will lose if the incremental provincial retail gas tax is rescinded in favour of a cap and trade system? The points you are making here sound very much like the kind of super-urgent sounding sales pitch I have heard from some of the economists and other academics who have become very, very major Gordon Campbell supporters over the carbon tax issue.

One last question I have for you is this. Given that Rae and Ignatieff are both unalterably opposed to the Green Shift, is this particular Federal Liberal policy as dead as Dion? And if so, what does that mean for federal politics going forward, and for the partisan positioning of the ENGO movement in the federal political arena?

"Addressing the problems of

"Addressing the problems of the environment is going to take a lot more than a Rube Goldberg perpetual motion machine that takes in 7c a litre from people with little or no choice in the matter and spits it out a year later without having built a single kilometre of Light Rail Transit, insulated a single home or converted a single working man or woman's truck to Natural Gas."

Translation:

"Why should I have to pay for the costs of my environmental degrading GHG emissions? The government should have to pay me to stop emitting or somebody else should have to pay"

Pagan: What should we be reading?

Ronald Pagan
If anyone would read up on the differences between the two mechanisms you'd find that they are essentially the same thing.

I agree that these two systems are essentially equivalent, and that raises the following question, which has puzzled me a great deal. Why the intense, emotional damnation heaped by carbon tax advocates on those who say they prefer cap and trade? Could that have been just a political marketing gambit, run for the purposes of last week's federal election and looking forward to next Spring's provincial election? If so, how do you think the carbon tax will play in next week's byelections?

The only real difference between them is that a carbon tax ... is MUCH MUCH easier to implement and administer.

Most taxes require considerable government bureaucracy, and once those sections of the tax legislation "matures" and acquires varying degrees of detail (READ: "loopholes") there arises, quite spontaneously, a market for tax lawyers and accountants who will increase the density of the legislative thicket considerably.

... Would the NDP auction the permits ensuring that the right to pollute is not free for corporations? ... From a social perspective a carbon tax is a 100% auction and therefore optimal.

The federal NDP's online platform statement is presented in the broadest of generalities, and doesn't specifically say if the permits would be auctioned or sold at a government determined price. I don't understand why a tax, the same as sale at a government determined price, is optimal in the same way that an auction is, in which buyers respond based on their own knowledge of production costs and alternatives.

I would seriously suggest people actually read up on the differences between the two policies.

An excellent idea. I have read a couple of short papers by William D. Nordhaus of Yale, the world's pre-eminent climate economist. Do you have any particular books or papers in mind that you can refer us to?

"Most taxes require

"Most taxes require considerable government bureaucracy, and once those sections of the tax legislation "matures" and acquires varying degrees of detail (READ: "loopholes") there arises, quite spontaneously, a market for tax lawyers and accountants who will increase the density of the legislative thicket considerably."

I can attest that taxes are orders of magnitude easier to implement than cap and trade systems.

The federal government has been negotiating its system for over 18 months now. The RGGI system in the U.S. took over 4 years to negotiate and implement. The WCI in Canada and the U.S. will likely takes 5 years.

A new tax can be administered in weeks without even increasing any staff in Finance.

"I don't understand why a tax, the same as sale at a government determined price, is optimal in the same way that an auction is, in which buyers respond based on their own knowledge of production costs and alternatives."

If we believe in efficient markets then the price of the tax will produce the same amount of emissions reductions as the final price of an auctioned permit under a cap and trade system with the same amount of reductions as the tax.

This isn't exactly the forum to go into greater detail.

Books on carbon taxes? There's many, I would recommend one by the Brookings institution.

This paper has the most convincing argument as to why a tax is better:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/10carbontax_metcalf/10_carbontax_metcalf.pdf

In your opinion it was worse - I think not.

It also had the advantage of being the result of long and intensive consultation with industry to the point that it was something they were on side with - it would have given performance and subsidy incentives to clean energy alternatives while Campbell just washes OUR money and gives it back to his friends.

It sure wasn't perfect, but it was about the only thing there was ever a chance of getting the United States to agree to...and, unlike the pie in the sky pretend revenue neutral Pigovian nightmare Campbell and his group of 'pet' economists dreamed up, it actually had a target of a 66% reduction in emissions by 2050.

By 2050 Campbell and his little green scam will still be doing nothing but spinning money (at great administrative cost - what was the bill to send that little $100. pander to all British Columbians?) and C02 emissions will have increased exponentially as Gordo's Gateway gets crowded with all those diesel trucks pulling containers from Roberts Bank.

In fact, Gordo doesn't even have a goal - he just mumbles when such things are discussed.

The only way to cut emissions is to force the people who are doing the major emitting to stop.

In Canada, that can best be achieved by DRIVING DOWN the price of oil below $59/bbl so the Alberta oil sands become uneconomic and the stuff gets left in the ground. The current economic crisis is doing that in spades - and getting results in a way the phony Campbell tax never could.

You know as well as I do that Alberta produces more than 30% of Canada's CO2 emissions right now - that's the problem that cap and trade has to address.

In my view, no matter what kind of a green shift you put on the Campbell tax it will never be anything but a tax on the poor and the working class - balanced by another pandering revenue shift to his friends in the road builders association and the BC New Car Dealers outfit.

Like most schemes dreamed up by academic economists who think they're scientists, this is a loser. Just like the neo-liberal economics that brought us Allan Greenspan and the global economic crisis.

But David

You still can't seem to come to grips with the fundamental problem with the Carbon Tax.

It is its 'revenue neutrality' that is the problem.

I never argue that the revenue neutrality is bogus because I've read the bill and its regulation - carefully.

I know how the legislative process works and I know that the only reason Campbell would agree to an increase in taxes was because his pollsters told him that citizens wouldn't accept the tax without it being structured as a government windfall.

The details of the process and why it is so costly are also in the bill - as are the exceptions like airlines and cruise ships and tanks of fuel coming in from Alberta bringing TILMA mandated workers and entrepreneurs; the details of how the minister of finance has to personally take the hit if every penny of the tax isn't spun out again to taxpayers every year.

There is nothing aggressive about hiding a pea under a walnut shell, swapping it around on a table for a few minutes and giving it back to your favourite players when the show's over.

Price carbon as aggressively as you want - unless that revenue leads to real change - and once again, read the bill, it doesn't, then this is utter nonsense.

Political will is the result of political leadership - you won't see any from the current Premier.....what Carole James will do is still to be seen - the necessity for her to criticize this stupidity is clear.

The pretense that real action on the environment will be revenue neutral is risible – and I noticed not a single phrase of praise for the much ballyhooed Campbell Tax in Gordon’s little financial statement last night – this is a pig in a poke – with or without lipstick!

I think the first pander payment actually 'cost' the taxpayer more than $40 million to 'deliver' - and not a single registrant has made their mandatory return as yet....

The point David

Is that it's not going to end any driving...and that's the problem.

In fact, what Campbell really wants is for people to take their Campbell Tax winnings and spend them on the products of his favourite lobbyists - the NEW CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF BC, so they can keep driving on roads built by another of his favourite sources of campaign funds the BC Road Builders.

The enviros should be embarrassed - so eaily taken in were they by this crap.

errata

that's so easily taken in were they by this crap

David Lewis: Think about your own words

David Lewis
3 cents a liter carbon tax is the most agressive regime in the world.

And Carole James and her NDP made political hay out of that as if the tax was going to end all driving here forever. There isn't political will in BC to do more and there isn't political will in the rest of the world to do more. So far.

If carbon taxes are as hard a sell as you say, then why not start with a cap and trade, and then do carbon taxes later, say in 2015?

Unfortunately Budd

Just like Gordon Campbell, David Lewis seems to think that the Bill 37 has ushered in a miracle tax which is well on the way to changing the world....like most world changers, he wants to do it on the pocketbooks of the working men and women - people who are already hurting because of his neo-liberal policies and welfare for the rich.

However, if his Carbon Tax (though it would still be completely ineffective in curbing C02) were being used to do something real and something green then I, for one, wouldn't feel duty bound to point out what's wrong with it every time a BC Liberal henchman shows up here to wave Campbell's flag.

It was interesting that Campbell is now so disenchanted with his own silly Wurlitzer of a tax that he didn't even mention it in the little statement he made last night.

You have to wonder if he's not sleeping at night because it has been shown to be both stupid and unpopular. He certainly didn’t look good on TV!

seriously though - send me an email if you have a

McAllister poll in the Globe

Looks like there's a reference to the McAllister poll in the Globe and Mail today.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081024.BCNOTEBOOK24/TPStory/Environment

I was trying to research McAllister's client work in the media to see what their biases are. Not very clear where they focus. They seem to do a ton of number crunching and consumer work, but their environmental research doesnt have much too do with the complex issue of carbon taxes.

- Mentioned in the Vancouver Sun for work on Eron investor fraud for the BC Securities Commission

- Canadian Wheat Board / American Bakers on biotechnology

- Federal government: Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture Canada, Health Canada and DFO.

- UBC on housing and SFU for alumni work. North Carolina State University on biotech.

- Sustainability research with James Hoggan (chair of the Suzuki Board!!), the Globe Foundation and an American (!) pollster Yankelovich.

And Globe, CTV, Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Star and Le Soleil coverage over general issues, but not carbon taxes.

But really I dont see how they know anything about the carbon tax. I dont see how any pollster could be qualified to ask about that. It is too complex.

Ronald Pagan This paper has

Ronald Pagan
This paper has the most convincing argument as to why a tax is better:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/10carbontax_metcalf/10_carbontax_metcalf.pdf

Ronald, I have read about half of this paper and it seems to recommend a system quite different than either BC Premier Gordon M. Campbell's carbon tax, or the now-defunct Federal Liberal Green Shift.

The author is talkng about an upstream carbon tax, levied as Jack Layton might say on the big polluters. As far as revenue neutrality goes, he's looking primarily at refundable tax credits, not just cuts in tax rates. I believe Campbell and Dion put all their emphasis on the latter, though I stand to be corrected on that.

Budd

Manitoba has refundable tax credits for low income families now and Saskatchewn has a refundable credit program for university graduates - something a relatively dim bulb like Brad Wall has had the good sense to retain....Campbell certainly has no such program and, as far as I know, Dion didn't either - although I stand to be corrected on the latter statement.