News

Carbon Tax Whacks the Poor, Later

Three years out, wealthy take smaller hit than low income BCers: study.

By Tom Barrett, 30 Oct 2008, TheTyee.ca

Gordon Campbell

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

British Columbians with low incomes will benefit from the carbon tax in its first year, but will pay more by the scheme's third year, a new study concludes.

The impact of the tax and its offsetting income tax cuts will become increasingly unequal unless the provincial government increases payments to low-income earners, the study says.

The study, by Marc Lee, senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and Toby Sanger, senior economist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, takes a detailed look at the fairness of the controversial tax.

The carbon tax scheme, which took effect July 1, recycles all carbon-tax revenues through personal and corporate tax cuts and a low-income tax credit.

"In year one, about a third of the revenues go to the low-income credit," Lee told The Tyee. "That's good news. That's a good, well-designed policy."

But while the carbon tax will increase steadily over the next five years, the low-income tax credit is scheduled to increase only once -- by five per cent in July 2009.

That means that by the third year, those in the lowest income group will end up paying an average $47 a year more than they get back in tax cuts and credits.

At the same time, those in the top income group will end up better off by an average of $311 in year three.

Stick with tax but change it: report

"It is important for policy makers to rectify this situation in the 2009 and future budgets by minimally ensuring that the credit grows in line with the carbon tax," the study says.

The study also argues that "revenue neutrality" -- recycling all the revenues from the carbon tax -- is "more of a political decision than anything else" and should be abandoned.

It argues the government should instead spend half of all carbon tax revenues on "major transit expansion, transition programs for workers, energy efficiency improvements for low-to-middle-income families, and an alternative technology development program."

Lee told The Tyee that he doesn't see the study's findings as a reason for axing the tax, as the New Democratic Party Opposition has been demanding.

"I'm more of a fix-the-tax kind of guy," Lee said. "I generally like carbon taxes with the caveat that the carbon tax isn't the only tool in the toolbox. You need regulations and standards and public investment, maybe a cap-and-trade system alongside them as well.

"Secondly, you have to design the tax in a way that makes sure that low-income families are not disproportionately hit by the tax in spite of having the smallest carbon footprints to begin with."

Said Lee: "I think they've done a pretty good job in terms of how they've designed the tax. There are some critiques to be made of the carbon tax system but they're relatively easy to fix. We recommend that the government do that in the 2009 budget."

Computer modeling used

Lee and Sanger ran data from Statistics Canada and the provincial budget through a computer model to determine the impact of the carbon tax on different income groups.

In the first year, from July 2008 to June 2009, the tax will cost the average B.C. household $253, the study concludes.

That's about one-half of one per cent of the average household income.

Accounting for the offsetting tax cuts and credits, the lowest 20 per cent of income earners will see a net gain of $38. That's 0.2 per cent of that group's average household income.

At the same time, the top 20 per cent of income earners will end up $62 ahead -- an amount that rounds off to 0.0 per cent of that group's household income.

By 2010/11, the tax is projected to cost the lowest income group $47 per household after tax cuts and credits.

In the same year, the top income group will come out $311 ahead -- 0.2 per cent of household income.

Lee acknowledged that these are relatively small amounts, but noted that the government's Climate Action Team has recommended increasing the tax after 2012, when it will hit $30 per tonne of greenhouse gases.

Biggest footprints get 'perverse' break

Economists have said that, to be effective, a carbon tax should reach $150 or more. At those kinds of levels, the inequality would be greatly magnified, Lee said.

"You want to get this right at the beginning so that if the tax were to be $200 a tonne, you wouldn't have these really massive regressive impacts."

He called the net benefit to the top income earners "kind of a perverse result. Those are the people who have the largest carbon footprint by virtue of having more airplane travel, larger homes, more cars, greater consumption overall.

"In a well-designed carbon tax system those people ought to be paying net taxes. They can reduce that by reducing their consumption."

The study notes that all income groups can reduce the money they spend on the carbon tax, which applies to virtually all fossil fuels, by reducing the amount they spend on carbon-intensive products.

However, the economists add, lower-income households are the least able to invest in energy-efficient technologies. "They are 'capital-constrained' and often lack the ability to invest in even simple technologies, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs.…

"For this reason, low-income households arguably should receive net benefits from the carbon tax regime in order to provide them with more options and choices in how they adapt."

Political support at risk?

Inequality can have a political impact, as well, the study says:

"If low- and middle-income people get priced out of the market while others can 'buy their way out' of change, climate policies may lose broad-based political support."

The study also considers the political ramifications of "revenue neutrality" -- the guarantee that all carbon-tax revenues must be returned to taxpayers. The concept has been ridiculed by carbon-tax opponents, both in B.C. and in the recent federal election.

"There is no reason why revenue neutrality needs to be part of the carbon tax system," the study says. "The government's approach of full revenue neutrality is more of a political decision than anything else, designed to make the tax more publicly acceptable.

"A common reaction, however, is to ask why a government would introduce a tax only to give the proceeds away, rather than spend revenues on other climate actions…"

No growth seen from income tax cuts

While proponents of revenue neutrality argue that the income tax cuts paid for by the carbon tax will boost economic growth, there is little evidence for this position, the study says.

"A recent study by the David Suzuki Foundation showed very little difference in economic impact among various options for recycling carbon tax revenues. Moreover, tax shifting is not sound public policy because at some point in the future carbon tax revenues should fall because we are doing such a good job at reducing emissions.

"Income tax cuts at this point would need to be revisited to maintain funding for public services."

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Tom Barrett is a Tyee contributing editor.

117 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Frank

    3 years ago

    Regressive taxation

    Tax the poor and give money to the rich, that sounds like a Campbell policy to me all right. Too bad the enviros support attacking the poor.

    Meanwhile, in the real environment, Campbell's anti-salmon policies have driven whales to starvation too. Guess the whales don't know we're paying 2.4 cents a litre more for gas now which somehow, its unexplained by both Suzuki and Campbell, means all mammals in BC are supposed to be fine and not require any habitat protection. But then the enviros support the Liberals because the gas tax is more important to them than habitat protection.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081029.BCKILLERWHALES29/TPStory/TPScience/BritishColumbia/

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Duh!!!

    Revenue neutral tax ain't neutral and it ain't helping the environment either...

    Would it be unfair to say I told you so?

    Surprisingly though, what was designed to be a program to protect Gordon Campbell doesn't appear to be doing THAT either.

  • realisticman

    3 years ago

    Myths & Facts

    Myth: The carbon tax will unfairly impact low-income British Columbians.

    Fact: Most low-income individuals and families will be better off under the revenue neutral carbon tax than they were before. A major component of the personal and business income tax cuts provided as part of the revenue neutral carbon tax is the ongoing low income climate action tax credit designed to help protect low income individuals and families. The credit will be paid quarterly along with the federal GST credit.

    The credit is effective July 1, 2008 and will provide an annual maximum of $100 for each adult and $30 for each child in 2008 ($100 for the first child in a single parent family) . The maximum credit is reduced by 2 per cent of net income in excess of $30,000 for single individuals ($35,000 for families) The maximum tax credit amounts will increase by 5 per cent and the reduction thresholds will be indexed to provincial inflation starting in 2009.

    http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/scp/tp/climate/A6.htm

  • Cynic

    3 years ago

    When you look at the

    When you look at the horrendous environmental degradation around us the carbon tax looks like a pretty rinkydink effort to mitigate the damage. What about the "economic growth" paradigm? The reason we are constantly hammered with the call for more growth is to keep the money/debt spigot flowing or the ponzi scheme will collapse. This is why the banker-controlled governments suddenly can find trillions to bail out the financial system. Without money reform environmental degradation is guaranteed and the carbon tax is futile. This CCPA study is not much use, a better one would address the central problem of the fraudulent issuance of our means of exchange.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Sorry R/man

    Please read the whole of the study...in years 2 and 3 of the program when the additional tax cuts in, the payments to low income folks don't rise in lockstep - as Marc Lee's study illustrates.

    It's just simple math...plus, no one is costing the horrendous additional administrative expense - it just gets buried.

    How much did it cost to deliver those cheques to 3.3 million citizens in July?

    You know the answer - you chose to ignore it.

    More to the point, the Wurlitzer doesn't do a thing for the environment, get a single car off the road, buy another bus, insultate another house.

    What's nice though, is that the greenwash on our convicted criminal premier doesn't seem to be sticking.

    In fact, you don't even need to bother with the study, just read this, from Barrett - you'd be better off doing that than bothering with the flim-flam from the Bureau of Public Affairs....now there's an enterprise I'd like to see costed out!

    "...the carbon tax will increase steadily over the next five years, the low-income tax credit is scheduled to increase only once -- by five per cent in July 2009."

    That means that by the third year, those in the lowest income group will end up paying an average $47 a year more than they get back in tax cuts and credits.

    At the same time, those in the top income group will end up better off by an average of $311 in year three.

    Nice for your side....

  • G West

    3 years ago

    errata

    That's 'insulate' - sorry.

  • Frank

    3 years ago

    realisticman

    Myth : posting in the comments section implies one has read the article

    Fact : After reading your post I see that's not true

  • Skywalker

    3 years ago

    It's a shell game.

    "A common reaction, however, is to ask why a government would introduce a tax only to give the proceeds away, rather than spend revenues on other climate actions…" A good question and likely why Campbell is not believed. This has been nothing about Campbell going green. It is just one of his political games for the suckers that believe him. Nothing he says is believable.

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Rman

    Wow--You are unbelievalbe

    Families making under 35.000.00 a year get a hundrd bucks!
    People making under 30.000.00 get a few bucks a year!

    Boys those families can now afford to keep their lights on for extra hour a day!

    Those under 30.000.00 a year earners can now start eating regular hamburger rather than no-name hot dogs!

    Rman --Your generosity is overwhelming/ Have you got your worm-filled appples ready to hand out on Haloween!

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Poverty

    Thank you egmont rapids. Some have never experienced it or did so long ago that they have forgotten what it means to pinch pennies. In fact two young men told me a few years ago that it made no sense on a cost/benefit analysis to stop to pick a penny off the ground.

    The cost of fresh food just escallated. More povety means more malnutrition. Does anyone here expect something other than a Great Depression?

    We now have a cooling planet, meaning greater costs for heating.

    "Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5C (1F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fuctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age."

    Global Cooling is Here! Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades,Prof. Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University.
    http://www.icecap.us/

    The irony of taxing us to prevent something which isn't happening must just make the political scamsters bust their sides.

  • Birch

    3 years ago

    Global Cooling

    Yup, that terrifying global cooling must explain all the melting at the poles and the 5 degree higher temperatures at high latitudes. Certainly has me worried. In fact, I was thinking about getting into a car a driving around the block just to try to contribute to warming! Get out the long underwear, guys! Yikes! Shiver...

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    David Lewis, ... C Heath, ... where are you?

    Where are the resident carbon tax experts, David Lewis and C Heath? Could it be that they are busy cleaning out the byelection debris from the Griffiths and McDairmed offices on the morning after?

    No need to ask where Mark Jaccard is. He's the author of the report Barrett has linked to at the Suzuki site.

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Mopled

    Let me clarify my position.

    I do not believe in global warming

    I do believe we should do our best not to pollute, I believe that Campbell`s carbon tax will do more harm than good.

    I believe that big polluters(industry)should be mandated to clean up their emissions.
    I believe goverment can force industry to clean up WITHOUT PASSING COST TO CONSUMERS

    I believe people shouldn`t be punished until new technology arrives/electric/solar/compressed air--When cleaner technology arrives people will buy it--Until then get off our backs!

    I DO BELIEVE in climate change,the climate has been changing forever,from when we had ice ages,from when the arctic was a warm tropical place--The weather is in a constant flux.

    If the climate gets warmer is better than the world getting colder/where as a warming planet will make someplaces very hot,it will also mean many people won`t freeze to death.

    I believe in protecting undeveloped habitat/I believe in drastic measures to save species/birds/fish etc
    I believe in keeping populations managable/7 billion people is NOT MANAGABLE

    Remember the world has been a giant frozen snowball on more than one occasion in it`s history!
    Cheers

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    blow your mind/ A must watch

    SNOWBALL EARTH

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVFJ1uzgPS4

  • NicS

    3 years ago

    Carbon Tax Almost A Dead Horse

    Marc Lee of the CCPA keeps harping on about the Carbon Tax being something he likes. While now trying to impress upon us that its not quite perfect. It strikes me that hes trying to make friends with the likes of GWEST for opposing the "in name only" Carbon Tax. Or maybe Marc Lee has been reprimanded for being so hard on the NDP's opposition to it and is just trying to make amends.

    Whichever it is Marc, try and get it right the first time next time. As in, know which side your bread is buttered or are you planning on working for Gordon Campbell or Marc Jaccard in the future?

    A word of advice though, politics is not your thing, stick to basic logic and an academic life.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    NicS

    I was kind of thinking the same thing - there sure are a lot of folks who want to 'love' the Campbell Tax but they haven't really got any answers as to why nobody else does.

    What really rots my socks is the attitude that you can't think the Campbell Tax is a joke and still be a strong environmentalist and supporter of addressing climate change.

    There was an interesting example yesterday afternoon on the CBC AM radio 4 - 6 show.

    The guest host, Shiral Tobin (formerly Rafe's producer and now directing Rick Cluff's Puff program each weekday morning) was sitting in for Stephen Quinn.

    She did a short interview with Jane Goodall who was promoting a local appearance AND shilling for donations and support for her efforts to save the big apes.

    After a remark by Goodall concerning her efforts to raise public awareness - Ms Tobin chimed in with an unpaid plug for the BC Liberals Carbon Tax and how people weren't falling all over themselves to support it....

    She even went so far as to identify it as a Liberal effort - blissfully unaware ( I guess) that such a reference (debatable at best) amounted to an unpaid advert for the Campbell Liberals on the very day that much of her potential listening audience was heading to the polls in a by-election.

    The fact that the public is far ahead of both the politicians AND the media - not to mention a bunch of apparently bought and paid for 'academics' is increasingly obvious in this province.

    Glad you brought it up!

  • OilbertaRedTory

    3 years ago

    Snowballs and Denialism

    for the chrono-geologically challenged :

    http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/earthsysflr/cambrian.html

    and here :

    http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/sub1-2.htm

    and for the Denialists :

    http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278

    "Your beliefs are cause maps that you impose on the world, after which you 'see' what you have already imposed."
    -Karl Weick

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Which emmisions?

    Basically I agree with you,egmont rapids, except if CO2 isn't doing anything, why should we tax anybody for producing it?

    Population reduces itself after a certain amount of education, affluence and choice is allowed by our masters.

    Russian climatologist Mikhail Bodeyko, whose work is discussed in SNOWBALL EARTH, thinks we have nothing to fear from a warmer Earth.
    As to why we froze and how we thawed many millions of years ago, I think Shaviv's explanation works much better than CO2 from volcanos as the BBC suggests in SNOWBALL.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2163646.stm

    We are now receiving a demonstration of why the effect of CO2 is inconsequential. Both CO2 and methane are up and temperature down.

    Birch...
    The melting at the poles has much better explanations, like ocean current cycles & undersea volcanos, than the supposed action of a beneficial trace gas AT 385 PPM or 0.0385% of the atmosphere. Did you know humans only account for 3% of the total?

    Oilberta, The Royal Society's statement that,"International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change." it is simply not true.

    http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-08-2007/0004701174&EDATE=
    Is there really a "consensus" on global warming among the scientists participating in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? To find out, DemandDebate.com conducted the first-ever survey of the U.S. scientists who participated in the most recent IPCC report. "Our results indicate that the notion of a meaningful scientific consensus on global warming is ludicrous," said Steve Milloy, DemandDebate.com's executive director. During the month of October, DemandDebate.com polled each of the 345 U.S. scientists listed as contributing authors and reviewers of the IPCC's "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis" with a six-question survey on climate change. Fifty-four IPCC scientists completed the survey, including several of the most prominent global warming alarmists and several IPCC lead authors. Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree Celsius is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase is either desirable, desirable for some but undesirable for others or too difficult to assess. "Among survey respondents, then, there's no consensus on desirability of 1-degree Celsius of global warming -- twice the level of warming that occurred during the 20th century," observed Milloy. When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate. "So if there's no agreement on what the target climate should be, what precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the climatic goal at which we are aiming?," Milloy asked. (cont'd)

    "

  • OilbertaRedTory

    3 years ago

    Denialism on Demand

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy

  • carfreed

    3 years ago

    carbon tax

    How about upping the insurance rate on cars .
    Pay as you go would save me a lot of monet since being a conscientious citizen I use an electric bike and public transit to get about.
    There is far too much traffic.
    Why dont they include all the costs to socity as a result of driving: medical,roads,police surveillance,traffic lights,parking,loss of habitat,street cleaning,etc.
    We,as pedestrian need gas masks and noise muffs.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    OilbertaRedTory

    Thanks. I think I can take a bit of a holiday.

    Cheers. BTW, did you see Margaret Wente on First Nations and civilization in the G&M on the Weekend?

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    3 years ago

    ROBBINS poll of interior

    ROBBINS poll of interior residents showed carbon tax---left most of Campbell's brain matter on the sidewalk.

    Boom--out go the lights--little boy.

    Conservatives have told him to go to hell=and our October 21, 2008 poll of lower mainland residents showed BC Conservatives with 4.1%. Our Greens was 8.4%--Sterk et al got 6.28%.

    BC Conservatives got 4.5%

    An earlier ROBBINS poll mused that BC Conservatives get 2% in Vancouver good-bye election--they get 6% provincially--BC Conservatives got double digits in Okanagan. 4.5% means near double digits provincially---and my phones are burning up with federal Conservatives and friends taking up provincial cause.

    Nice job Wilf Hanni. Good for you. I met with Wilf and told him I wanted to lead the BC Conservatives--wanted to beat Campbell's ass so bad--I'm pounding the heavy bag like a prisoner on testo injections.

    I wrote Harper and told him if he doesn't set the table for BC Conservatives I'm running for BC NDP----I have no doubt with $500,000 I can beat both BC Liberals and BC NDP. No doubt.

    (I apologize if I piss anyone off with confidence).

    Imagine the feeling of having no doubt--no doubt. There's nothing like it.

    The BC Liberals are in trouble for May--big trouble---anyone who hasn't come to this--beyond the denial is a fool of Doobie Brothers proportions "no wise man has the power".

    ROBBINS deepthroat says former Vancouver mayor front and centre in pedophile ring---says Vancouver Sun knows all about it--who could that be? Well actually I know---a brawl is coming---and us ROBBINS BOys--we'd rather fight than eat. Stick that on your CBC menu and you might get more than 3 people lining up to vote in political and news toilet.

    By the time we're done--no more secrets with these pompous criminals running our province.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    3 years ago

    Isaiah ch57v20

    GWest - there is no rest for the wicked ;-)

    thanks for the link on pre-contact Native civilizations in North America

    "... we shouldn't expect much from newspapers anyway."
    Hayden King writing in Toronto's national newspaper 'the Grope and Flail'

    q.e.d.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    tip 'o the hat Glen

    You must listen to CBC now and then too.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    And you too

    RedTory...

    if you're interested, send me an email, I kind of like your approach

    garthwest@hotmail.com

  • Luke Skywalker

    3 years ago

    ROBBINS Sce Research

    OK I'll bite. :)

    Our own in-house jester G West has implied on various occasions that well... you're the "Most Accurate Pollster In the World"!

    Quote:
    I have no doubt with $500,000 I can beat both BC Liberals and BC NDP. No doubt.

    I assume that said half a million and change is gonna come from this:

    Quote:
    Glen P Robbins to sue Federal government for $35,000,000 (US) dollars

    http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_521.html

    Quote:
    ROBBINS deepthroat says former Vancouver mayor front and centre in pedophile ring

    I'm all ears... as I'm sure are all of the rest of us. ;)

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Not true

    Never once said that luke

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Although I did say

    That I thought Mr Robbins had forgotten more about polling than you ever knew....

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    The right to self defence

    Would those who try to pretend that consulting for an energy company is evil advocate denying legal help to someone accused of a crime? Burning coal and oil will do nothing to the climate, so why shouldn't energy companies seek to defend themselves?

    Exxon gave $19 million over 20 years to skeptics in very small amounts as honoraria or consultancy fees. The US gov. poured $50 Billion over 10 years into the newly invented thing called "climate science". Gore announced last spring he was planning to spend $300 million on convincing people AGW is real.

    Red Tory, you seem to lack a sense of proportion, to say the least.

    None of the "reputable" news outlets will even mention evidence contrary to AGW, hence the Milloy/Fox connection.

    The left/right divide on the topic of AGW has been carefully nurtured to trap the unwary and the latest survey shows it. It also shows that AGW true believers only amount to about 18%.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/27/ecoamerica-poll-climate-skeptics-are-the-majority-not-the-minority/

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    Progressive Economics - Marc Lee

    G West

    I was kind of thinking the same thing - there sure are a lot of folks who want to 'love' the Campbell Tax but they haven't really got any answers as to why nobody else does.

    On the Progressive Economics Forum Marc Lee has spent months explaining Premier Gordon M. Campbell's carbon tax, and making sure that everyone knows just how terribly frustrating the NDP has been. Marc has called many of their statements "simply not true", a verbatim bit of wording from one of the 200 university economists who wrote the "open letter" on the subject.

    http://www.progressive-economics.ca/author/marc-lee/

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Luke

    That is I who has called(SCE Research) "The world`s most accurate pollster"

    Luke your man Campbell, the phoney is more dead than any politician since Glen Clark!

    Here is some examples of the (backfiring propoganda)machine.

    #1--Yeasterday at 8.00am on global morning news-Steve Darling had a morning guest propkoting the cherry blossom HAIKU FESTIVAL--(hAIKU IS A SHORT NON-RHMYING POEM) wINNERS OF THE 5 DIFFRENT CATAGORIES get the Haiku and name put on translink cars and buses.

    She asked if she could read one that was not entered in the contest (It was written by Gordon Campbell) She went on to say that Gordoh writes one EVERY YEAR but doesn`t enter the contest!

    Gimmee a break,are trying to say that Campbell sends in a "Haiku poem" every year --but not for the contest! pretty stinky bull!

    Today on Global evening news/ Global has been doing a 5 part series on reducing your carbon footprint,they showed some highlights from tommorrows 5th of 5 episode--Titled what prominent BCers are doing to save the planet!

    Well.guess who it is about,you guessed it Gordon and Nancy Campbell--Apparently Campbell WAS SO -CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLANET --That he and his wife both bought hybrids(I can`t wait to boo my tv tommorrow)

    YA--Campbell had 80.000.00 dollars to by 2 hybrids at once!

    Campbell`s ego is bloated,he just doesn`t get it,he`s hated,the more he shows his face the more he is reviled!

    P.S.--I had more than one freind comment to me today that Campbell appeared to be sloshed last night while conceding the bi-elections.
    It appears Campbell`s booze demon has returned,expect more fanaticalism from Campbell!

  • OilbertaRedTory

    3 years ago

    The Right to Self-Delusion ...

    ... cannot be abrogated even were it desired.

    Just don't expect a free pass on lies.

    The evidence for anthropogenic global heating is vast, consistent and readily available.

    This isn't difficult to comprehend : reputable corporations marshall their evidence in the open daylight rather than skulking in the shadow of astroturf cabals. Error has no rights.

    http://www.energybulletin.net/node/20667

    And now even the Denialists-in-Chief at ExxonMobil are implementing GHG reduction strategies.

    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx

    As for proportionality mopled, one of these might fit :
    http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/

  • David Lewis

    3 years ago

    We must be fair as we kill the planet

    All the report cares about, so it says, is fairness. They specifically do not pay attention, they say, whether the tax is effective or could be effective at reducing emissions.

    If you spend more as a percentage of your income on fossil fuels as a result of this tax than the next person, the tax is deemed to be unfair.

    There is no data or opinion expressed about the relative unfairness of every other aspect of our lives. Minimum standards for food, housing, education, and just about every expense I can think of costs poor people more as a percentage of their income than rich people. Nothing is said as to where BC stands in relation to other provinces on any kind of "fairness" measure, and no data or opinion is supplied comparing Canada to other countries.

    But, let's dump on the tax, join the chorus. Even though the guy says he's in favour of carbon taxes, and he's in favour of doing something about climate change, he knows, there's something terribly wrong with this tax.

    If the NDP had mounted their critique of the carbon tax from this point of view while saying they support it as a necessary part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions they would be looking a lot better in the eyes of people who want action on this file. So, maybe the NDP will take this report to heart and we'll start to hear less gibberish from them in the future.

    "This study did not take into account the one-time $100 dividend". Why? If the report writers did so it would have skewed the result further away from their "this is unfair" conclusion. It was bad enough that they found the tax to be fair for the first year. Adding the $100 into the mix might have pushed the result into fairness two years out of three.

    The report assumes that a "static" analysis is fine. They mean the report assumes no one will change one thing they do as a result of seeing a price on carbon appear as the latest writing on the wall.

    The point of carbon pricing, whether its cap and trade or carbon tax is to change behaviour. The reason to start small and gradually increase is to serve notice that action is coming and give the society time to take carbon pricing into account in all future decisions.

    There would be no point in taking the entire philosphy of pricing carbon into account when analysing this tax. That might have a bearing on the issue of effectiveness, and all these people care about is fairness. We might not have a planet to live on, but we will be fair.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    David Lewis

    That's disingenuous - Because life is unfair we should make it more so?

    Real concerns about the planet are needed -Campbell and his group of compromised economists haven't provided it.

    We shall see what the NDP comes up with if and when they come to power - until then, they, and the rest of us who 'really' care about the future of the planet will continue to call a spade a shovel.

    And we'll lend it to you and Gordon Campbell to dig that hole a little deeper.

    Cheers

  • David Lewis

    3 years ago

    they don't understand how serious the situation is

    Being an advocate for "fairness" is taking a political position in a highly charged debate.

    But the report pretends to say politics should be left out when considering what details to include in a carbon tax.

    Eg.: "revenue neutrality is a political consideration above all else, and should be abandoned".

    What they mean is their politics should be considered, and all other politics should not be. Or maybe they mean they are smarter than anyone who is an actual politician. Revenue neutrality serves two purposes at least - one, it was thought to potentially make the tax more political salable, and two, by returning the money to the where it came from, the consumer, it is going to the person who is in the best position to make the decisions as to how best reduce the carbon emissions in their own lives. But, this report assumes no one will be making any decisions about any reductions anywhere, so all they see is oh this is politics, why our politics is so much better, why our politics is so great it isn't even politics.

    "tax shifting is not sound public policy". These report writers are actually saying they are concerned about some time in the future when carbon taxation is no longer necessary. I've never actually run into this argument before. They are concluding, it seems, that there is no way to make direct taxation on pollution "fair" in the way that progressive income taxes are, so they are looking beyond pollution taxes to the day when we can all go back to some world they refuse to see is gone forever.

    All the climate campaigners I know, for the last twenty years, believe in the deepest part of their souls that the planet is going down for the count. They get up in the morning and somehow deny this to themselves for one more day, and see if there is something, anything, they can do to get this suicidal civilization to lift one finger to do the slightest thing about what there is no problem getting the best scientists to sign off describing as a threat that can be compared only to global nuclear war.

    This civilization is going to be in the business of planet management from now on. The wastes are constantly increasing on any number of fronts, most significantly, in the atmosphere. All anyone can conceive is stabilizing the atmosphere at some less dangerous level than doing nothing would cause. The best climatologist on the planet is warning all of his colleagues that all previous "less dangerous" target levels they were considering are just more recipes for "global disaster".

  • David Lewis

    3 years ago

    no option to change behaviour

    According to the CCPA report:

    "people with low to middle incomes should have real options for changing their behaviour"

    I had a 1984 Tercel before this tax was brought in. I paid $200 for it years ago. I get cars when their useful life is over, according to just about anyone else, and fix whatever is required and keep them running. I could have kept this one going for years longer, even though it had 450,000 km. As a result of the high gasoline price caused by the high international oil price, and seeing they were actually going to tax carbon at last, I made the decision to do something. I got a 1995 Tercel, which has proven to get more than 25% better gas mileage. I drive less. I turn the shower off several times while using it to conserve hot water. All my lightbulbs are fluorescent or LED.

    I'm planning on putting a biofuel (wood pellet) stove into my wife's house. I'm researching how to get into an electric bicycle to get to the nearest store so I won't have to drive. My wife was very happy to find that transit had now arrived in the town where she lived to cut out 20 miles from her commute to her job. She uses it.

    But there's nothing anyone can do. This report assumes that there's nothing anyone is going to do that the government doesn't hand to them on a platter. The government should provide me with a real option. I don't have any options now. Is that right? What kind of analysis is this?

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Alarmists have no proof

    Oilberta presents nothing except an attempt by Exxon to mitigate their image last year. It was later scorned by its CEO. There was never anything more than a very weak correlation between warming and CO2 and that has been cancelled by the present lower temperatures.

    "Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet."
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4

    There is a much better correlation between sunspots and temperature and that has been born out by the present drop in temperature. "“Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “We’re experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/30/nasa-sun-is-blankety-blankest-its-been-in-the-space-age/

    Lastly, Oilberta, I suggest some reading about how the scam came to be.
    "Suicidal conspiracy

    A conspiracy stratagem was openly presented by Maurice Strong, a godfather of the global environmental movement, and a former senior advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General. In 1972 Strong was a Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and he has played a critical role in its globalization. In 1992 Strong was the Secretary-General of the “World Summit” conference in Rio de Janeiro, where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol were laid."
    http://www.nzcpr.com/guest116.htm

    Dr Vincent Gray, expert reviewer of IPCC Assessment Reports since their inception, has up-dated his extensive paper, "The Global Warming Scam", in which he shows that none of the evidence presented by IPCC confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/GlobalScam3a.pdf

  • G West

    3 years ago

    David Lewis

    Generalizations are fraught. The suggestions that all climate scientists think the planet is going down for the count is another unwise and far from accurate statement.

    Humans may well be going down for the count - or at least a lot of them.

    The planet, however will be here for a few more epochs I think - if it ain't, nothing we can do regarding C02 and other greenhouse gases will have much to do with it.

    My car cost $10.00 - does that make me 20 times better than you?

    I don't think so....

    Although are lots of valuable things individuals can do about their own 'carbon' profile, the suggestion that individual action can make much of a difference sounds a lot like something Rick Mercer would dream up...or something even more symbolic and nonsensical like Gordon Campbell's Rube Goldberg effort to reward his friends with a 'revenue' neutral tax...and punish the poor and working people of British Columbia more than they have already been...

    By the way, you should check out pellet stoves before you decide that's the right way to go:
    http://fengrrl.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-pellet-stoves-really-reduce-carbon.html

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    David Lewis: First sensible thing you've said

    "I had a 1984 Tercel before this tax was brought in. I paid $200 for it years ago. I get cars when their useful life is over, according to just about anyone else, and fix whatever is required and keep them running. I could have kept this one going for years longer, even though it had 450,000 km. As a result of the high gasoline price caused by the high international oil price, and seeing they were actually going to tax carbon at last, I made the decision to do something. I got a 1995 Tercel, which has proven to get more than 25% better gas mileage. I drive less. I turn the shower off several times while using it to conserve hot water. All my lightbulbs are fluorescent or LED."

    David, my apologies for thinking you're just a Liberal shill. You probably are a Liberal shill, certainly a solidly Liberal voter, but at least you're also doing something real, putting in the labour and other inputs needed to keep an existing car going. I do the same thing with my 1988 Jeep Cherokee, which is hardly the world's most fuel efficient car, but then I don't drive it much, probably less than 10,000 kms a year. I use public transit weekdays for the main trip to work.

    I wonder, though, if you're not gilding the lilly a bit with that shower nob trick? Wouldn't a low flow head left on for the duration of the wash be sufficient?

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Lewis

    What the hell are you trying to say.

    Don`t you get how a carbon tax is supposed to work?
    In theory,you price fuel to the point that the poor to middle class can`t afford to buy it!
    The rich will always be able to afford fuel,so in essence what a carbon tax does is again make a seperation of class,the rich can play,the middle to poor income earners are stuck walking,riding,begging!

    Speaking of hot air(Lewis) substantial reductions could have been accomplished just by bringing in strict emission standards province wide.
    Anyone who defends the carbon tax(wurlizter,washing machine) is a fool,idiot,period!

    If people all quit driving tommorrow the economy would collapse--The reduction in goverment taxes,just add up all the car related jobs,sales,tires shops,repair shops,paint,detailing,washing,parking etc etc etc.
    Probably 1 in 4 jobs is auto related,Campbell knows that,all goverments know that.

    People like you Lewis who know this Campbell gas tax is useless but continue to defend it as a enviromental option make me gag!
    The only way a carbon tax could work is to price fuel say to, 10.00 a liter,that no-one could afford to drive except the rich,if Campbell did that the economy would collapse!
    Lewis,don`t insult people`s intelligence,don`t make the argument that with fuel price down that people don`t care--YOUR WRONG

    Campbell is a LAME DUCK POLITICIAN BECAUSE OF IT--People know a scam and for you or Campbell to treat people like idiots will guarantee a NDP win in May/so keep it up Campbell,or as G West says

    " Here`s a shovel, dig yourself in a little deeper"

  • reallife

    3 years ago

    Lewis vs. Egmont

    Lewis, now do you see why it is useless to try to introduce reasoned discussion to this site? Thoughtful comment based on real world possibilities only results in ideological rants, name calling and verbal attacks on at least one politician (usually the provincial premier).

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Actually, a tax is easier to remove

    A commodities type system for trading "carbon credits" would be very difficult to dismantle once it was supporting all the freeloading types.
    "On May 30, 2008 The Montréal Climate Exchange (MCeX), a joint venture of the Montréal Exchange (MX) and the Chicago Climate Exchange®(CCX)(Maurice Strong's baby), officially launched trading of a new futures contract on Canada carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units."

    Never forget it was Ken Lay of Enron who first proposed C&T.

    The US Congressional Budget Office published a report last year.

    "Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."

    "The CBO noted that the proposed cap-and-trade allocation method "would increase producers’ profits without lessening consumers’ costs. In essence, such a strategy would transfer income from energy consumers—among whom lower income households would bear disproportionately large burdens—to shareholders of energy companies, who are disproportionately higher-income households."

    "Researchers conclude that much or all of the allowance cost would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Those price increases would disproportionately affect people at the bottom of the income scale. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the price rises resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions would cost the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) of the income distribution about 3.3 percent of its average income. By comparison, a household in the top quintile would pay about 1.7 percent of its average income."

    "A cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions would tend to increase government spending and decrease revenues."

    "The higher prices caused by the cap would lower real (inflation-adjusted) wages and real returns on capital, indirectly raising marginal tax rates on those sources of income."
    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8027/04-25-Cap_Trade.pdf

    And remember...it would have NO EFFECT ON CLIMATE.

    It is more than passing stange that both Layton and Harper are onside for Cap&Trade.

    "The bottom line: Due to the reduction in economic growth, by 2020 every man, woman, and child (in Canada) would be about $2,700 poorer than the baseline scenario -- or about $10,800 for a family of four.
    http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=96dc23c8-33e2-45c4-bf6a-14aba852d764

    So why does the NDP support C&T?

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Reallife

    Why have emissions gone up since the carbon tax has been implemented?

    Why will emission in BC go up next year,and the year after?

    Show me the data on how Campbell`s gas tax will reduce emissions?

    Even Jaccard says that gas prices will have to rise to well over 2.00 a liter to see any reduction.

    And that reduction will happen because people can`t afford to buy it!

    Where will Campbell get tax money to replace the billions of dollars in lost revenue if people stopped driving?

    The majority of people spoke in the federal election---NO CARBON TAX PERIOD!

    When new technology arrives people will buy it, until then get of our backs!

    Have you ever lived in car dependent communities Reallife--Most of the province does not have transit options.

    Maybe all un-essential air travel should be banned?

    Maybe a premier shouldn`t fly to maui 3 trimes a year! Maybe a premier shouldn`t have sold BC Rail,considering BC Rail used to piggy back trucks and containers all around the province.
    Maybe the premier shouldn`t be twinning bridges or widening highways.

    Maybe the premier should get fish farms out of the ocean and on to land!

    Maybe the premier should ban gas flaring in northeastern BC
    Maybe the premier should back off on offshore oil and gas drilling!

    Maybe the premier should ban BC coal shipments to China(The world`s biggest polluter)

    Reallife(oxymoron) --you know what you can do with your feel-good tax that accomplishes nothing.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    reallife

    I resent that.

    Please, make a reasoned case for a tax program that is revenue neutral [I don't actually believe it is, but I've read the legislation and within the parameters of the definition that every dollar collected has to goes back - willy nilly - to some taxpayers] I'll accept the term as defined in the act.

    I'd like you to address the following in your 'reasoned' case:
    1) the administrative costs of handling registration, submissions, accounting, allocating and refunding - not to mention determining how those refunds are balanced and offset by payments to individuals and reductions in taxes;
    2) the fact that major polluters and producers of greenhouse gases like cruise ships and major airlines are 'exempt';
    3) the fact that there is no indication that more than 5% of the recipients of the first installment of the pander payment have done anything remotely 'green' with them; and
    4) the undeniable fact that the effects of the tax over the first three years of its existence will not (under the current regime) impinge in any kid of an equitable fashion; not forgetting
    5) that not a single bus, public transit corridor, insulated dwelling, more efficient heating system, unit of public housing will have been built as a result of the imposition of the tax.

    I don't believe that's an ideological rant at all...

    I'd like to hear about your set of 'real world possibilities' because I think mine are actually a lot closer to being sure things.

    Cheers.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    erratum

    No 4, above should be any 'kind' not 'kid'...

  • reallife

    3 years ago

    Egmont

    I think your response goes a long way in making my points about rants and attacks on politicians!

    However, just for the record, I have spent the majority of my life in one of the coldest, car-dependent regions of the province. Also you wrongly assume that I am a big fan of the carbon tax.

    I am not convinced that CO2 emissions are significantly threatening the planet and believe that the climate change hysteria is just that. In keeping with this line of thinking, I do not agree that a carbon tax is a must.

    With this said, I do believe if a government is going to take some form of action to reduce emissions, a carbon tax is better than cap and trade. I fully accept that the BC carbon tax is revenue neutral to the province although it will not be neutral for every individual. Those who use large amounts of energy (like me) will pay more, those who chose to use less will be winners. I agree the tax will not have the same effect on everyone - wealthy people will continue to live in large homes and drive large cars because the fuel cost is insignificant to them or they can afford to buy a hybrid Lexus. Others may have to turn down the thermostat and ride the bus. That is the way our society works - the wealthy have caviar, the rest of us have McDonalds. Banning large vehicles and limiting the floor space allowed for each individual would make us less fortunate people feel better but that is not going to happen (welcome to the real world).

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Carbon tax

    Reallife

    I am not opposed to a carbon tax.

    A carbon tax if collected -Each region of the province should be able to retain the tax and put it to use in each region.

    For example--All carbon tax from the Kamloops region should be given to Kamloops to use in --Transit,green retro-fitting,grants to home owners for green technology.

    If Campbell was to proceed in that manner I would be ageeable to a tax that does something.

    The gas tax in its present form is neither a tax cut nor is it a enviromental plan.

    It is nothing but a scam in its present form.

    P.S.--year over year there were 78 thousand more cars on the road,according to ICBC

    You call that effective!

  • sdgreen

    3 years ago

    Carbon Tax is Unfair

    There is no doubt about it the Carbon Tax in any form, AT THIS TIME, is flawed.

    The carbon tax is NOT revenue neutral, is cost intensive to ALL British Columbians, and in it's present form WILL do nothing to reduce GHG's.

    The whole notion of a Carbon Tax is to invoke a penalty against people in the flawed sense that they will reduce their carbon foot print. The problem is, at this time, there are basically 'zero' alternatives for people to adopt without shelling out thousands upon thousands of dollars. Pretty well most people CANNOT affort any alternative energies available now.

    Transit systems throughout British Columbia are a joke, and even if expanded will do absolutely nothing to address the ghg issue.

    Neither the NDP or the BC Liberal proposals are even remotely effective!

    If the ghg problem is serious, and I think it is, then the bloody governments need to take significant action, WITHOUT penalizing the people by adding new costs. It may be that some 'cherished' programs are placed in temporary stasis; so be it.

    Right now jsut about all the governments at all levels are doing a circle jerk and accomplishing nothing.

    The BCLiberal carbon tax and the NDP proposed cap and trade system are bogus, totally flawed, completely unworkable and does nothing. European countries who have adopted some of the processes, are in a mess, jobs have been lost, nothing has been gained, except dismal results.

    We need to accerate RD into solutions, we need to implement solutions but until those solutions are found, there is really nothing to turn towards.

    As part of the so called BC Energy program, BCHydro is not penalizing people with their new RIB program. This too is bogus. People must live. BCHydro must find solutions to increase electrical generation. Just so happens that hydro electric is really good!

    So far, the ghg taxes are nothing but a cash cow that not only hurts the poor but also just about everyone else.

    The NDP plan is no better!

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Poor Egremont asks why

    Yes, CO2 continues to go up because the oceans are still warm. We could each drive 10 SUVs at a time and change nothing. Humans only account for 3% of total CO2 and that total is only 0.0385% of the atmosphere anyway.(It must be a magical substance to be able to change climate when there is so little of it.)

    Also, may I remind you that even though CO2 is going up(and unexplainably methane too,) we have had quite a drop in world temperature. How's that for a bit of cognitive dissonance.

    "Alaska’s glaciers grew this year, after shrinking for most of the last 200 years. The reason? Global temperatures dropped over the past 18 months. The global mean annual temperature has been declining recently because the solar wind thrown out by the sun has retreated to its smallest extent in at least 50 years. This temperature downturn was not predicted by the global computer models, but had been predicted by the sunspot index since 2000."
    http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2013

    I'm gratified that at least you understand that the carbon tax is a scam. Now if you could only manage to open your mind enough to examine why the rest of it is a scam too.
    Richard Lindzen,PhD.,Harvard,
    atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT just wrote:
    Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions?

    Has global warming alarm become the goal rather than the result of scientific" research?

    http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/30/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/

    It is quite the eye-opener. The Big Green Machine is not our friend.

  • reallife

    3 years ago

    Carbon Tax is unfair

    As stated in my previous post, I agree that the BC carbon tax is unfair as are most things in our society. However, it is not as bad as most taxes as it returns the bulk of the money to us so we can make our own choices on how to spend it. I am a much better judge of how to spend my own money than the government is.

    As for accelerated R&D on energy, private interests will fill the need when energy prices are sufficient to support profitable alternative energy sources. We should not encourage government to throw grants around for this purpose as the money will just disappear (anyone remember the scientific research tax credits?).

    Quote
    BCHydro must find solutions to increase electrical generation.

    I am with you on this one - far better to increase the energy supply rather than ration it. However, BCH is so bureaucratic that it may not be the appropriate vehicle. BCH can only do large projects (like Site C) as they are too inefficient to build and operate small projects (like run of the river). A parallel can be found in the oil industry where large corporations pursue huge, capital intensive projects while the smaller, nimble companies can make money from small oil and gas pools. By the way, if anyone were to question the fact that BCH is too bureaucratic they may want to recall the estimates debate where the Minister of Energy, supported by the top BCH brass, could not even guess the number of vice presidents in BCH.

    Quote
    Just so happens that hydro electric is really good.

    I fully agree. Unfortunately, many do not. For example, Site C is vehemently opposed by people in the northeast (why should their land be flooded to supply power to the lower mainland?). Run of the river projects are also opposed by NIMBYs (Sunshine Coast RD) and special interest groups (white water kayakers).

  • RickW

    3 years ago

    Andrew Weaver

    http://www.amazon.ca/Keeping-Our-Cool-Andrew-Weaver/dp/0670068004

    He handles the climate deniers quite nicely..........

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    Rick W

    Thanks for that, Rick. On your recommendation alone, I'll read the book when I have time to do so, and so you should be pleased to know that it's right up there, as 1,394th on my list.

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Don`t mock me mopled

    No crime in being as green as possible.

    Reallife, your argument is pathetic!

    No one asked Campbell to sell 2000 rivers for 5000.00$ each
    He never told the public he was going to sell them.
    Bc hydro can build run of river far more cheaply than any private firm.

    BC hydro could pay private firms to build them for a price and BC can retain ownership and the profits.

    The selling of rivers was merely a gift to Campbell`s corporate freinds.

    Don`t you give a f__k about wild salmon!

    Reallife, your whole 70.00 tax cut will really give you an option to greenify your life.
    Campbell barred BC hydro from new power projects for another reason,no one could compete with BC hydro,BC Hydro can produce power for a third of the price.

    Reallife you going to get a real wake-up call when Campbell gets floored out of office in may 2009!

    Mopled--What part of " I don`t believe in global warming don`t you understand"

    That doesn`t mean car companies shouldn`t build cleaner cars!

    Fertilizers and toxins are killing off bees,and fish and birds,no I am not talking about GHGs.
    Have you seen pictures of smog in Bejiing?

    Smog from BC coal, something the reallife won`t address,that and Cambell`s push for offshore oil and gas,nothing but greenwashing.

    Reallife,even you don`t believe in the effectiveness of the Campbell gas tax,your merely trying to prop up your corrupt Liberal party.
    Show me some evidence reallife,eveidence that Campbell`s gas tax will work!

    You can`t,you won`t,because it doesn`t exist.
    Cap n Trade was a disaster in EEROPE,emissions went up, even norways aggressive carbon tax,emissions still went up.

    There is no such thing as a carbon "offset" it doesn`t exist

    Campbell has already backed off on the carbon tax for --schools,municipal districts,who`s next?
    Translink?--hospitals?--the north?--Why do you think Campbell trails the NDP by 12 points in the last ipsos reid poll?

    P.S. nice to see the drinking driving premier back on the sauce again.

  • happy

    3 years ago

    Speaking of being on the sauce

    I see the RCMP's not the only Public institution that's cranking up the damage control over drinking / driving employees.
    We now find out a N Vancouver school trustee, Chris Dorais is in the same boat.
    That would be the same Chris Dorais who is also involved at the highest levels of...the HEU.
    I would think the Union has no choice but to dump him since thats what they demanded of Gordo.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Makes sense to me happy

    except Gordo has established kind of a sick precedent now, wouldn't you say?

  • realisticman

    3 years ago

    Two minuses

    Do two wrongs make a right?

    Chris is, kinda, sorry. Was speeding too.

    "On the morning of March 8, 2008, the vehicle I was driving was stopped by the RCMP for exceeding the speed limit. I agreed to, and provided, a breathalyzer test, and was subsequently charged with driving under the influence," Dorais said in the statement.

    "I regret the decision I made not to address this matter publicly, and with my colleagues, sooner. For that, I sincerely apologize," he said.

    That's OK Chris, we're all busy and it's only been eight months. How was your summer?

    On his campaign website, Dorais refers to himself as a concerned, connected advocate for education. He says he has been dealing with youth directly as a coach and a liaison for the North Vancouver student leadership council.

    Two school trustee candidates said Dorais should bow out of the race.

    "I feel he should resign and take some time for some self-healing and some work on himself — AA meetings and counselling, whatever he needs that would be good role modelling for the students," said Mary Tasi.

    "It's shocking and it's serious," said John Harvey. "I feel that Chris should really consider dropping down from the candidacy of the school board."

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Weaver's book

    "but Dr. Weaver does come up seriously short in his failure to directly address the many issues raised by the so called "climate deniers," other than to repeat the worn out charge that all challenges to the IPCC interpretation originate with a "denial industry" funded by energy companies and the like. Are there any environmentalists who understand the obvious; that an argument is not automatically invalid simply because it is presented by someone with a stake in the outcome? Are there even any environmentalists who can see the obvious; that not every challenge to global warming has been politically motivated?"

    from the one review at amazon.

    Got that Oilberta?

    I apologize egremont. Yes, we do have environmental problems AND they are being obscured by the emphasis on AGW....

    AND monies which could be used to mitigate or solve those problems is diverted to warp science and buy time on TV in a media an PR blitz.

    The carbon tax and cap and trade will be used to bleed us dry and is based on fraudulent science. I think that is probably where most attention should be paid right now.

    It is a scam which must be exposed before it goes further. Like a phony charity, it takes advantage of our desire to do good.

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    "reallife"? More like realpropaganda!

    reallife
    I am a much better judge of how to spend my own money than the government is.

    Classic right wing propaganda, completely unfounded. For once Scott Reid was right. Some of that tax cut will go to beer and popcorn.

    As for accelerated R&D on energy, private interests will fill the need when energy prices are sufficient to support profitable alternative energy sources. We should not encourage government to throw grants around for this purpose as the money will just disappear (anyone remember the scientific research tax credits?).

    More propaganda. Until the last few weeks, oil prices have been at unprecedented levels, and oil company profits have roared upwards accordingly. How much of that windfall profit has big oil put into alternative energy research? Does anyone know? Does the public even have a right to know where those huge profits are going? Or are they just supposed to do what you do, take it all on faith?

    The SRTC was poorly managed, but not every government research grant is run that way. That particular late-Trudeau era scam is a bit dated now. The federal granting councils, NSERC and SSHRC, are run by professionals, at least for now. I think one reason so many academics provided "open letters" in this past federal election had to do with their fear that a Conservative majority would mean the Bushification of these granting councils, but they didn't want to bring their concerns about their research grants into the open, so they went with a climate change cause celeb instead.

    However, BCH is so bureaucratic that it may not be the appropriate vehicle. BCH can only do large projects (like Site C) as they are too inefficient to build and operate small projects (like run of the river).

    This is a totally baseless asumption. And it just happens to be a propaganda line promoted by the BC Liberals and their friends in the IPP sector to buttress their decision to arbitrarily exclude Hydro from building any new capacity of its own.

    Run of the river projects are also opposed by NIMBYs (Sunshine Coast RD) and special interest groups (white water kayakers).

    So, kayakers are a "special interest" group, but not the IPP companies who will make a great profit developing that river for hydro, but ruining it for recreation? This is far beyond mere propaganda. I am not sure what you should call it.

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Budd Campbell

    I appreciate the back-up in exposing (Reallife) for what he is --A media monitor, a data-less Liberal backer? A mindless drone with no brain power,no argument,no facts,nothing!

    Nothing but a spewer of Liberal talking points.
    Reallife--Get a life, your not up to the challenge of debate,stick to reading comic books and fairy tales, I WOULD SUGGEST "MY PET GOAT" AS A GOOD READ FOR YOUR APPARENT IQ LEVEL

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    Should Dorais leave because of .08? Or HEU?

    realisticman
    Two school trustee candidates said Dorais should bow out of the race.

    At no point does realisticman actually say explicity what he personally thinks Dorais should do. However, from the passages he quotes I think it can be fairly infered that he agrees that Dorais should leave the race for North Van School Board.

    The thinking couldn't be more clear. It's true the Premier stayed in office after conviction for a similar offence, and that was OKay according to realisticman. But Dorais's case is different. He's an HEU official! That's what realisticman is really concerned about, and that's what the rival school board candidates don't like either.

    If Dorais was a well-to-do orthodontist or corporate tax lawyer there would be no problem for him. The BC courts would almost certainly let him off if he simply showed up with a couple of well-off friends who were prepared to take the stand and testify under oath that they were with him all evening, and they saw him have a maximum of x drinks. Then a blood alcohol expert would be called to testify that with that many drinks in his system, a man of Dorais's weight, y hours later would have had a BAL of 0.nn, something under 0.08.

    That kind of testimony would be considered by a judge to be sufficient credible testimony to cast reasonable doubt on a breathalyzer reading, even one in the high teens even, in other words, a Premier-sized martini reading.

    I was told about this get-out-impaired free scam by a Vancouver Police Officer some years ago, and I emphasize that he had personally seen this scam used to overturn breathalyzer readings approching 0.20.

    However, this scan only works for upper income professionals and business types. It does not work for truck drivers, carpenters and waiters. So if you're not middle class, or old or new money, don't drink and drive.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Do two wrongs make a right?

    Do you understand the principle of precedent?

    Campbell has cheapened both the office and the 'morality' of public service beyond imagining.

    From a guy who promised transparency and accountability, I'd say that's much the bigger 'wrong'.

    Nice of you to admit that much though - we all appreciate it 'realisticman'...

  • reallife

    3 years ago

    Egmont Rapids

    Are you off your meds?

    As a newcomer to this forum I had naively expected it to be a place for exchange of ideas and rational discussion. However it appears that any expression of thought that does not represent far left ideology brings personal attacks and mindless rants. Surely we can rise above childish name calling.

    I am also somewhat taken aback by how often the provincial liberal party and Gordon Campbell is the topic of discussion on this site. A public figure once noted that any publicity was good publicity - could it be that the posters criticizing Campbell are really liberal party members raising the profile of the premier? Egmont Rapids are you really Martyn Brown?

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Reallife

    People are expected to back up their statements with facts.

    All you have is un-proven talking points!

    The gas tax is greenwashing

    Run of river --No-one voted or asked the goverment to do it.

    No one can say that billions of dollars in Hydro fees from the people`s rivers going to private corporations is good for the province.

    Any one who makes that statement is wrong,there is no discussion.

    Just like the selling of BC rail which was making over 100 million$ per year and Campbell sold it for how much? 600 million dollars. Does that make any economic sense?

    Everyone here is prepared to debate factual evidence, the carbon tax does nothing--78.000 thousand more cars year over year,source ICBC

    Don`t just spew without data.

  • realisticman

    3 years ago

    Reallife; "As a newcomer to

    Reallife;

    "As a newcomer to this forum I had naively expected it to be a place for exchange of ideas and rational discussion."

    You're a quick study mate. This place makes the Georgia Straight and the CBC look like the official mouthpieces for Bush and Rove. Many posters here believe Marx is going to reappear and take control imminently. Not to forget the definitive fact that the loss of any job, all the pollution in China and the Global Meltdown is entirely the fault of Gordon Campbell who takes a perverse pleasure in accelerating a Dickensian existence for millions of BCers. Basically, this is the worst place in the world - according to them.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Thanks for that realisticman

    Illustrating your own highly prejudiced attitude toward child poverty (worst in Canada); your unconcern for a rusting and mortgaged higher education structure; your ignorance of a forest industry which has taken to selling real estate rather than creating jobs; and your affection for a government whose concern and affection for the welfare of the BC New Car Dealers' Association and the government subsidized "GERMAN" shipbuilding industry knows no bounds.

    As for your frequent invocation of Marx into the debate, I think that too is a little suspect - at the moment he (Marx) has considerably more credibility that the late and not lamented Milton Friedman.

    Fair's fair don't you think, Mate?

    And you didn’t mention the Indians once; you must be getting forgetful in your old age.

    Are you and reallife related?

  • happy

    3 years ago

    Thanks West, I won my bet (with myself)

    While watching the news last night when all these revelations about people-who-should-know-better getting busted for DUI's, the first thought that sprang into my peanut sized brain was how the Tyee Troopers would instantly link this to Gordo. Predictable? Yes.

    Nice to see you think he has such an incredible influence on peoples habits. In light of this all he has to do is tell people to re-elect him and it will be so.

  • happy

    3 years ago

    Egmont Rapids

    your quotes:

    "People are expected to back up their statements with facts."

    Fully agree. Please provide some objective data to show how Gordo has sold 2000 rivers for 5000.00 each.

    "Run of river --No-one voted or asked the goverment to do it."

    Fully disagree. ROR projects were prominent in the media and on the go before the last election. The people did vote on it neighbour.

    BTW, everybody knows the rapids are in Skookumchuck, not Egmont

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Well Happy

    That certainly seemed to be the case in 2005 - which doesn't say much about the intelligence of the British Columbia electorate.

    And the current mess, where the finance minister doesn't know from one week to the next how much cash he has in the till, sure seems to indicate that falling commodity prices and the demise of the forest industry are now turning BC into 'The BEST PLACE ON EARTH© (NOT).'

    I don't suppose the media will be blaming THAT on the Campbell government.

    Remember that point I made above about precedent - 'cause from Gordo's statements at the Liberal convention, I understand he's planning to run against the 1990s and Glen Clark all over AGAIN.

    He certainly doesn't think much of the electorate's intelligence either - what did you say about pea brains?

    But then that seems to be some people's assessment anyway, now doesn't it?

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    The Best Propaganda on Earth!

    realisticman
    Basically, this is the worst place in the world - according to them.

    What is it according to you, realisticman? Or have the BC Govt's propaganda TV commercials, which Carole James has wisely promised to eliminate, already answered that question?

    BTW, why are those ads so juvenile, so silly-bugger in tone? Is that what you consider to be a realistic approach?

  • happy

    3 years ago

    How to fool stupid people

    Carole seems to have learned. She promises even LOWER taxes than Gordo has, AND with some sort of undefined GHG program that will let us commoners have our cake and eat it too!

    Why wouldn't Gordo run against the NDP's record? I know its not pretty but is it supposed to be off limits for some reason?

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    In what election were ROR projects a major issue?

    reallife:
    Fully disagree. ROR projects were prominent in the media and on the go before the last election. The people did vote on it neighbour.

    I don't recall ROR or IPP projects being a prominent issue in the 2005 provincial election. The issue was there among people who followed policy on energy closely, and its true that BC Citizens for Public Power were already raising concerns about it. But I don't recall it being a prominent enough issue that one could say that the general public took large account of it in forming their decision.

    BC does have a statute which permits issues to be put to a referendum. Should the issue of private versus publicly produced power, and the method of assessing scores, even hundreds of small hydro and wind projects be put to a referendum?

    As it stands right now, all the field research is done by the proponent, and then public agencies review that work. And who is going to compare the cost-benefit of all these small projects to one or two large projects (eg Site C, South Meager Geothermal, Burrard NGGS re-powering, etc.)? There are a lot of process questions one could ask, and the BC Govt has glossed over all of them.

  • happy

    3 years ago

    Mr Campbell

    I never said it was a MAJOR issue Bud. I merely pointed out it wasn't the hidden agenda ER insinuates it was. It was in the media plenty, you didn't have to be an Industry insider to know about it. If you missed it, well....

    We don't need expensive referendums on Govt policies Bud. Thats what elections are for.

    BTW, I'm happy, not reallife

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Cause the NDP doesn't have a record

    The Campbell Liberals do. They've been in power for 8 years remember?

    And it's not a pretty one.

    I know Gordon and his friends live in the past, but, 8 years is a bit much.

    By the way did you read the study that showed NDP governments over the past quarter of a century have run deficits less than any other brand of government in the whole country?

    I think the P3 ROR was a bit of a hidden agenda Happy...and, if you're honest, you're going to have to admit that too.

    Something like that promise NOT to sell BCRail I guess - that kind of a hidden agenda....

    And that little referendum Vancouver voter just held...guess that doesn't count either.

    Oh and by the way, when it comes to having your cake and eating it too, you know that line you just wrote up above here?

    That sounds a lot like Campbell's money laundering scheme - you know the one that this article is about, the one that hits poor people harder than wealthy ones - like everything our drunk driving premier does...

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Happy-you wrong

    you are wrong happy, it is actually the skookumchuk narrows, which is located directly in front of Egmont,no where is the name rapids on any map.

    Like I say,everyone likes debate,just have to back it up,Happy now I see why your backing up Reallife,your both on the same incorrect page!

    Eh Happy--There is no place on the map called Active pass rapids, or Dodd narrows rapids,polier pass rapids--Yet all those places have tidal rapids.

    Do you have room for another foot in your mouth Happy!

    But maybe the so-called according to Reallife "special interest (whitewater kayakers) people might call the fast water (skookumchuk rapids)---But that doesn`t make it right!

    Better luck next time Happy--strike 1

  • happy

    3 years ago

    Correct, in power for 8 years

    And the NDP was in power for 10 years West. Of course they have a record. Just like a drunk driving charge, it stays with you for life as much as you wish it would just be forgotten.

    No, I havent read the "study" on deficits. To what do you refer?

    Again, the ROR program was not hidden.

    The Promise not to sell BC Rail. Yes, political shenanigans abound with all Parties don't they. I recall a Promise not to spend beyond our means if a certain Party was elected. And then implementing the biggest tax increase in Provincial history after getting elected. I suppose you could make the argument it was no longer beyond our means at that point. Logic.

    Of course the recent by-elections count. The NDP won, what are you getting at?

    Finally, if/when Carole lets us in on how the NDP will save the planet then we can compare it to Gordo's money laundering scheme. Until then I refuse to speculate.

    Not that stops most posters here

  • happy

    3 years ago

    You got me ER

    Thanks for the geography lesson. Good bunt.

    What about the 2000 rivers? Foul ball on your part?

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Did the public

    Did the public have an oppertunity to buy any rivers?
    Did the public know they were for sale?

    Did Campbell announce they were sale?

    Why was it a flat rate for rivers?

    How come no bidding war?

    Maybe Gwest would of liked to buy a river or maybe Ed Deak would of bought one,maybe I would of bought one.

    Don`t kid yourself Happy,this will be an election issue,it will be the one that brings down the Liberals!

  • happy

    3 years ago

    ER

    So you have zero evedence to back up your claim on the 2000 rivers then?

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Sorry Happy

    How many of those members are left from 2001? ONE….some record.

    The Liberals are the ones in power, the ones who have been screwing up the works for the last 8 years and it's their record that is on trial - as much as Gordo would like to keep re-fighting his past victories, it isn't going to work. It’s a broken record happy, and people are sick of it.

    Campbell and his buddies from the corporate suite have more than enough baggage of their own.

    Look it up, I'm tired of doing other people's homework for you - it was done by the Federal Finance department.

    If you want to talk about logic, let's start with the Campbell tax...you know the one that doesn't do anything about reducing greenhouse gases - collects a fee on every litre of gas, every cfm of natural gas and every litre of stove oil and diesel - then spins it around for the rest of the fiscal year (to help make the empty treasure look as though there are still a few pennies in the bank) and then spins it back out to Gordo's friends in a tax break at the start of the next fiscal year.

    The NDP tax increases were necessary to pay for Paul Martin's reductions in shared cost programs - I know you don't like to admit it, but the NDP did a lot better job handling the Asian flu than Hansen's done so far dealing with Greenspan's plague.

    He's so obviously clueless he doesn't know from one month to the next what the bank balance is,

    Pretty funny actually.

    And then there's the highest rates of child poverty in the BEST PLACE ON EARTH© so much to be proud of!

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Happy

    http://www.watershed-watch.org/Run-of-river-Tyee-Feb19_2008.pdf

    This story makes reference to over 500 water licenses, I will find more data.I have nothing to prove to you Happy,500 water licenses are far too many,but just by doing the math,if OVER 500 water licenses have been granted,I doubt every sold river has been granted licenses yet!

    Perhaps Rafe Mair will provide sold river numbers,I will send him off an email!

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Licenses

    A water license costs $10,000 or less for a whole waterway. There are more than 500 active applications already. Most of which are in the Squamish Lillooet Regional District. Several licenses holders are former BC Hydro executives.

    The power purchase agreements are issued at the current average rate of $100 per MWh from which the public receives a flat fee of $1 per MWh. A capacity charge is also levied of a few percentage points and the private company owns the facility and
    has a perpetual water license.
    They receive all of the income above that cost, about a 97% gain and at the end of the contract period with BC Hydro they can
    sell to whoever they want in North America for as much as they can get.

    I don't thing egmont's suggestion ro 2000 is at all out of line if this isn't stopped NOW.

  • happy

    3 years ago

    Correction

    Martin started downloading costs to the Provinces in 1994. The Harcourt-Clark-BC Fed historic tax increase took place in what year? I'm not going to look it up for you.

    I already said, until Carole comes clean on what their Plan is, no comment. And just so we're clear, I don't care for the tax myself. I'm selfish. I didn't like the 3.5 cent/litre tax the Libs put on gas in their first term either.

    When Carole explains how she will balance the budget, lower taxes and clean up the enviroment all at the same time I'll answer your questions.

    OK?

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Happy

    Tommorrow I will search my BC legislature estimates debates/ I know over 15 thousand rivers and streams have been identified as having potential for run of river/from streams to creeks to rivers.

    Just going off of memory over 2000 have been sold and no,they all haven`t been granted licenses yet,probably many that have been sold will never get a water license.

    I would of bought 10 rivers myself.

    Yet I and every other BC resident were pre-cluded from buying.

    I am sure the province could of raised billions from selling rivers to people who who wanted to keep them rivers.

    Too lazy to go through ministry of energy/mr Neufeld --estimate debates from spring session

  • margot

    3 years ago

    Greens

    Ain't it funny how prominent Greens turn out to be closet Liberals, again and again.

  • happy

    3 years ago

    13000 still left to buy

    What exactly are you getting at by claiming rivers have been "sold"

    That implies they are someones private property. Do ranchers "own" a river because they have a Water Licence?

    If you think its that simplistic, then go ahead and buy a river. According to you there should still be at least 13000 to choose from.

    You're a Sunshine Coaster, why has the Rainy River project been put on hold? After millions spent.

    And tonight it's the ROR policy thats going to bring down the Govt. Up to this point you've been stating it would be the gas tax. Bit of a loose cannon my friend.

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    happy, ... you're making me laugh!

    happy
    I never said it was a MAJOR issue Bud.

    It's implicit in saying it was known at the time of the election that it was a major enough issue to be actually noticed. Otherwise the election result is not a mandate pertaining to that issue, only the other more salient issues that the public was generally aware of.

    I merely pointed out it wasn't the hidden agenda ER insinuates it was. It was in the media plenty, you didn't have to be an Industry insider to know about it. If you missed it, well....

    It wasn't on most voters' radar screens and did not receive a great deal of media attention, as you well know. That probably was part of the communications strategy, to not communicate this policy change to the voters for fear that they might indeed take it into account when deciding which party to support.

    BTW, I like that last sentence of your's. It's a sort of political insider's way of smirking over the fact that you've pulled what you think is a real fast one on the public, and they've got no one to blame but themselves, ... well, ... according to you that's the only one they can blame. They may have other ideas, with or without your permission! LOL

    We don't need expensive referendums on Govt policies Bud. Thats what elections are for.

    A laughable remark given your other statements. First you say if they missed the fast ball, tough. Then you say that general elections are always a full and fair test of every government policy outstanding at that moment. Laugable insincerity.

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    happy, as in happily anti-union

    happy
    Martin started downloading costs to the Provinces in 1994. The Harcourt-Clark-BC Fed historic tax increase took place in what year? I'm not going to look it up for you.

    Your anti union phobia is showing. I wonder if you're a paid blogger for the BC Liberals, or for the ICBA?

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    An excellent point, margot

    margot
    Ain't it funny how prominent Greens turn out to be closet Liberals, again and again.

    Do you mean David Suzuki, or Mark Jaccard, or Andrew Weaver?

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Campbell isn`t fooling anyone!

    Please read the story and the comments section

    http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.htnl?id=962adc6d-e7ff-4e77-8723-2d0a53add930

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    I try again

    Campbell ain`t fooling no-one

    http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=962adc6d-e7ff-4e77-8723-2d0a53add930

    read the comment section

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    The winds of change a'blowin?

    It seems to me that as our resident neocons get ever more strident and careless with the facts, along with having to summon their buddies back out of their burrows, that they're getting a bit twitchy.

    Could it be they feel a cold wind on the back of their necks?

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    happy

    I may well be a loose cannon,there are just so many things that will bring Campbell down in may 2009,it is very hard to keep up with them all.

    Campbell is begging,pleading,bribing,advertizing(propoganda)

    He is doing anything he can afford to keep the Liberals in power (he doesn`t want the books exposed)

    The more he begs,bribes,the lower his numbers fall,his ego is so bloated,he doesn`t realize that every time he shows his face people cringe,he would be wise to hide until the election.

    That is why the last Ipsos Reid poll/ The one done in september has the Liberals down 11 points, the poll has been buried,that is why Campbell is in panic mode.
    Have you noticed he appears to be slosh city in recent days/glug glug glug

    The levee has broke,Campbell is caput/there is nothing he can do to turn around the poll numbers!

  • happy

    3 years ago

    No problemo Bud

    Making you laugh was only returning the favour. It would be hard to top your query the other day after the NDP wins in the by-elections, where you wondered if that had been "planned" on purpose by the Libs to rally the troops. Priceless!

    Nothing like MORE conspiracy theories to keep me in good spirits here. Whats your take on 9/11? Inside job?

    Anti Union you say. I guess you missed the post where I related the six ones I've been a member of. Now to qaulify, those were all Private sector Unions. Night and day between Private and Public mentality. Glens tax increase did nothing for me - except make my paycheck smaller so that the entitled ones were larger.

    Why is it you people must always default to "he must be a paid Liberal shill!"
    Like I said to GWest once, insinuating I'm a Government employee is a bit of an insult.

  • happy

    3 years ago

    Queen of Surrey

    In spite of it all, I kinda like ya.

    "Have you noticed he appears to be slosh city in recent days/glug glug glug"

    Well, no I haven't but the way you put it made me laugh!

    Cheers Brother (let me know when you grab one of those 13000 rivers and we'll try our luck with the rods and a full cooler)

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    egmont rapids

    Careful with your thinking that our MSM has seen the light, Egmont. The Sun / Province ALWAYS become critical of their neocon gov'ts a few months before an election.

    Then, when they've convinced their readers that their reportage is unbiased after all, about a month or so before the election they will come out screaming the usual warnings that the sky will fall if we vote in an NDP gov't. You can bet on it.

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    An embarassment to any private company too

    happy
    Anti Union you say. I guess you missed the post where I related the six ones I've been a member of. Now to qaulify, those were all Private sector Unions. Night and day between Private and Public mentality.

    I don't recall seeing that list of six different unions, but I wonder if you joined objections by the NCC to those unions spending money on political campaigns, especially NDP campaigns? Since you're drawing such a sharp distinction between private and public sector unions, I guess you were pretty happy with the way Premier Campbell treated the HEU? And very angry that the SCoC ruled that he had wronged the individual workers they represented and would have to offer them actual compensation, an amount which was later negotiated at $89 million?

    Why is it you people must always default to "he must be a paid Liberal shill!" Like I said to GWest once, insinuating I'm a Government employee is a bit of an insult.

    Maybe it's because you sound like one? But you're right, it is an insult. To government employees. But then some people would be an embarassment to any private company as an employee, too.

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    3 years ago

    Here's the point--if Obama

    Here's the point--if Obama wins-ROBBINS was only pollster after New Hampshire primary in January of 08 to call Obama 3-4% ahead of Clinton, while Gallup Rasmussen--Zogby--everyone called Clinton 12-20% ahead. Within one week CNN Time all pollsters matched our numbers. If Obama wins most accurate pollster in the world is a fair depiction.

    Mainstream news doesn't like it--but they have huge financial troubles--and we don't so--we're delighted with that of course.

    Called Bush weeks ahead in 04---Harper minority in 06--months ahead--national radio etc.

    Most accurate pollster or clairvoyant--it has to be one or the other--or the rationale for motivation has to be emotional.

    The $35,000,000 is likely too high in these economic times--but I would use this money--an amount provided to me by an International lawyer--back some years ago--but this wouldn't be used in the campaign--it would be used to build ROBBINS Worldwide-most accurate pollster in the world--and to help out telemarketers with hundreds of phone banks and no-one to call.

    The $500,000 is an amount which I calculated would be sufficient to run a provincial campaign against two relatively luke warm popular parties with the Greens slowly fading and BC Conservatives warming up. I calculated the campaign out bare bones at that amount. Just as ROBBINS predicts with accuracy and mainstream et al lose influence--each and every day--the opportunity to exploit the emerging provincial vacuum is relatively easy to calculate--estimate.

    I already filed a 100 page Statement of Claim Vancouver Registry SO12600 stamped May 08, 2001 in Smithe Street Registry. The Ministry of Attorney General did not file a Statement of Defence.

    I am looking at a Rule 66 (fast track litigation) for this---, and have commenced or help to commence these applications most recently.

    Each day that goes past with this outstanding--is an opportunity to invalidate Charter Rights---courts--institutions as contrived--to the extent ROBBINS is considering starting a new country within Canada--a truly legitimate country--not a kind of phoney apologist--come by chance referee in good standing for the United States--but a real country--with a Constitution that matters--laws that are applied--and elected people--courts etc that are democratic and accountable.

    We believe it can be done--and have recognized some of the mistakes Peter Griffin made in Qhog--mistakes we won't repeat.

    We thought it might be better to ask this question: Which of the following former mayors of Vancouver would you most likely expect to be in the middle of a pedophile ring? Let the people decide.

    The information we are getting on elected officials--it is no wonder they never get out of line. I would speculate that the deal with the mainstream news is that someone steps out---they're news--that is how they are whipped because some of this is very ugly.

  • reallife

    3 years ago

    Egmont Rapids

    Quotes:

    People are expected to back up their statements with facts.

    Don`t just spew without data.

    Many thanks for the tips on thoughtful and respectful posts. I will be scrutinizing your submissions will an eye to determining how they can appear to be mindless rants when they are actually statements of fact.

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Obama wins... of course!

    The dems get to deal with the mess and also get to install draconian measures to increase the cost of electric energy by coal fired plants. Obama is on record about wanting to bankrupt them.

    He is on record, as is McCain, in wanting a cap and trade system,, which is how the bankruptcies will be accomplished.

    Harper wants cap and trade too.

    "Capitalising on climate change

    The emergence of a market in carbon emission rights shows that there is big money to be made from trading in hot air.

    From Master of the Universe to will o’ the wisp: the demise of the Lehman Brothers’ investment bank is a case study in the vacuity of modern capitalism. Quite apart from speculating in dubious property investments, another big idea the bank had was to trade in thin air. The 2007 Lehman report, The Business of Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities, argued that the bank could play a major role in the fight against climate change – and earn some money doing it. Lehmans hoped to become a ‘prime brokerage for emissions permits’ (1). But how do you make money out of climate change?"
    continued http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5750/

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Reallife

    Your defending a gas tax!

    A gas tax that is collected than returned,there are winners and losers on the return of this money.

    Where does Translink`s share of the gas tax end up going? hospitals? What about truckers?
    Has anyone changed their ways? How come people are now being gouged for clean,green electricity?
    Are there not still traffic jams everyday?

    Are there not 78 thousand more cars year over year on the road(source ICBC)

    Has any country actually had their emissions decline after implementing a carbon tax?
    Reallife, I agree,a gas tax can work if --You price fuel so high that people can`t afford it but if you do that the economy will collapse.

    More could be done for emissions with strict tail-pipe standards province wide,with strict enforcement.

    Reallife,you want to defend a gas tax,at the same time Campbell wants to bull doze through burns bog(SFPR),wants to pave farmland in Delta/Tawassen/ build more highways and twin bridges.

    Especially when there are hundreds of studies that prove building highways will only encourage more car use!

    The reason why you Reallife and Liberals and affluent people like the Gas Tax is--It eases their guilty souls,I can drive my hummer because i`m paying a gas tax! Just look at are Liberal party,were saving the planet.
    Reallife,you can lie to your mother,your wife,your boss,to me but you can`t lie to yourself!
    If you were a enviromentalist Reallife and you were really concerned about the planet,you better hope and pray that the world doesn`t adopt the Campbell gas tax,because emissions will do nothing but rise!

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Reallife

    Have a read of this story--According to DR.Henderson, A reduction of at least 80% on GHGs as a minimum is required by 2020 --If not there will be irreversable global warming and climate change.

    I personaly don`t believe in global warming --Obviously you do Reallife,if that is the case and Dr. Henderson is right about a 80% minimum reduction is required--What good is Campbell`s Gas Tax when emissions are rising?

    http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/climate-change-a-humanity-threatening-non-issue/#comments

  • reallife

    3 years ago

    Egmont Rapids

    Eggy, your memory is failing. In one of my earlier posts (which you criticized) I clearly said that I do not believe human activity contributes significantly to climate change. I also said that I did not favour any new taxes but the BC carbon tax is not as bad as other taxes as some of money comes back to me. I firmly believe that I am better than the government in determining how to spend my money.

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    3 years ago

    G. West--I watch CBC--my

    G. West--I watch CBC--my comment related to low voter turn-out, my general premise is that low voter turn-out is a function of uninteresting unimaginative mainstream politics which has been supported by uninteresting unimaginative mainstream journalism. Mainstream pollsters earn their keep from mostly large corporations which also fund the advertising--this is old old news. Now, with the Obama thing apparently coming home---In January 08 when ROBBINS called Obama--some of the criticism we received--and let's be honest--the main criticism was--an African American President--of the US--be serious?

    Methodology--the traditional science is a formula function of the sample size--that's it--nothing more--it is a function of the sample size only.

    It's interesting we have could tracking in behind our site--and we can see that the 'police' in Canada have tracked most of ROBBINS environmental polls--Western Wilderness--West Vancouver--or our Al Gore in Oregon polls--before this subject even got hot. As Kyoto waned and than the environment--the hits from our site from Europe cut by half to less than that now.

    Most of our hits all all over Canada--main media centres like Toronto--and all over the Northeast and West Coast of United States.

    You cannot sell an environmental tax in a falling economy--the average Joe sees the environment first as their own---garbage recycling--etc. price of gas--need to get to work--cost--family cost. It is absolutely an esoteric discussion---the debate about carbon tax---cap and trade all of this---simply because the entrance to the discussion in the main artery of the public is exempt the experience.

    When children in school are fund raising for carbon credits--and the experience is entrenched within the school--and the more parents participate--than the idea of selling new economies--social cost accounting etc. which will become available in the next up cycle--will manifest into something meaningful.

    I dont' know if Campbell gets it--he seems like a line and block thinker--and doesn't understand that starting points intersect at other points often in an unclear fashion--so these concepts are more visual to begin with--he isn't a vision type leader--what he is thinking is this: I will do everything I can--cheat if I must--parlay everything to win an election I am likely going to lose--and try to keep the BC NDP close so BC Liberals can regroup. He doesn't like labour--I get the impression he doesn't really like the average person--doesn't understand them--and keeps power because Dosanjh blew a hole in the NDP and permitted Campbell the opportunity to control everything including the media--which in now starting to hedge its bets--particularly after gag law move.

    Campbell will say he tried on the environment--lost trying to protect the environment--and no-one will say you lost because you're not actually a very good leader--a control freak--and maybe an asshole to boot.

    That's how it is.

  • egmont rapids

    3 years ago

    Reallife

    Then why have a Gas Tax disguised as a tax cut?
    Lets just get rid of it,it does nothing but muddy the waters.

    I am glad you just admitted that Campbell is just a phoney when it comes to the enviroment.

    Reallife, I will put you on my invite list,when I buy that river Happy and I and you will go fishing,BYOB (bring your own beer or bud)

    Cheers

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    How much are Liberal bloggers paid

    Does anyone happen to know how much Liberal party bloggers are paid? Does it vary according to education level, or are they paid on some kind of piece rate basis?

    I know what the NDP pays. Nothing.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Couldn't agree more

    I dont' know if Campbell gets it--he seems like a line and block thinker--and doesn't understand that starting points intersect at other points often in an unclear fashion--so these concepts are more visual to begin with--he isn't a vision type leader--what he is thinking is this: I will do everything I can--cheat if I must--parlay everything to win an election I am likely going to lose--and try to keep the BC NDP close so BC Liberals can regroup. He doesn't like labour--I get the impression he doesn't really like the average person--doesn't understand them--and keeps power because Dosanjh blew a hole in the NDP and permitted Campbell the opportunity to control everything including the media--which in now starting to hedge its bets--particularly after gag law move.

    Campbell will say he tried on the environment--lost trying to protect the environment--and no-one will say you lost because you're not actually a very good leader--a control freak--and maybe an asshole to boot.

    That's how it is.

    I think you've nailed it.

    And Campbell who truly is a control freak, will claim he's been hard done by.

    Budd, I have no idea what he pays his troops - but, if you check for Stuart Chase's salary in the financial records, you should be able to get a pretty good idea. Chase is the Public Affairs Bureau member hired by Order in Council to sit in on the Basi Virk Trial in the spring of 2007....

    I'd reckon most of the media monitors get at least what he's been drawing.

  • Luke Skywalker

    3 years ago

    Budd...

    Quote:
    This is a totally baseless asumption. And it just happens to be a propaganda line promoted by the BC Liberals and their friends in the IPP sector to buttress their decision to arbitrarily exclude Hydro from building any new capacity of its own.

    Ya gotta be kidding!!!

    BC Hydro:

    1. Revelstoke Dam - Unit 5 generating station - 500 MW;

    2. Revelstoke Dam - Unit 6 generating station - 500 MW

    3. Mica Dam - Unit 5 generating station - 500 MW;

    4. Mica Dam - Unit 6 generating station - 500 MW;

    5. Site C - 900 MW;

    Columbia Power Corp./Columbia Basin Trust (BC Crown corps.)

    1. Waneta Hydroelectric Expansion Project (2003) - 435 MW;

    Right there ya have 3,335 MW of planned or under construction generating capacity;

    And that ain't peanuts.

    Looking at current ROR IPP's, the capacities are relatively puny:

    .77 MW, 1.5 MW, 3.1 MW, 5.6 MW, 6.6 MW, 21.85 MW, 29 MW, 35, Mw, etc, etc...

    http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/green_ipps.html

    ...And here's the NDP's new flip-flop position on ROR IPPstated in the Nanaimo Daily News:

    Quote:
    Krog said the NDP have no intention of eliminating all the province's IPPs, because some "make sense" when partnerships are formed and resources are returned to groups like First Nations rather then independent companies that are here solely to make a profit.

    But the problem with the NDP's new flip-flop position is that almost all ROR IPP's also have have a First Nations financial interest/stake (or municipal) in same [in conjunction with private entities]. Go figure!

    And ya know what else the NDP's Krog further said about no more BC ROR IPP's like you suggest?

    Quote:
    "Liar, liar pants on fire, hang them from a telephone wire," [Krog] said.

    Too funny.

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    I was thinking a bit lower down the Liberal food chain

    G West
    Budd, I have no idea what he pays his troops - but, if you check for Stuart Chase's salary in the financial records, you should be able to get a pretty good idea. Chase is the Public Affairs Bureau member hired by Order in Council to sit in on the Basi Virk Trial in the spring of 2007....

    Well, I doubt the Liberal shills who populate comment threads such as this one, or PublicEyeOnline, or babble are paid the kind of money that any of the OIC types are paid. I am thinking it's probably about the minimum wage and is intended to pull in students and retired types.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Budd

    Well-llllllll you may be right of course, but, there is that glaring precedent of Dave Basi using his office to coordinate mau-mauing with Gary Farrell-Collins, among others relative to phone in shows where the Premier was appearing.

    I've always kind of figured they'd use a few 'experts' and spread the mud and the manipulation around among themselves...As far as I know (meaning last time I checked) Chase's OIC hadn't been rescinded...and he was, if I recall, a very junior guy - hired on just for that precise purpose I'd guess.

    I expect they've moved him on to other duties.

    As I said, you may be right that they leave the field to retired folks and part-timers but, knowing what I do about the way they operate, I doubt it.

    Of course, there will be free-lancers in the field but I doubt they're under the direct supervision of the Bureau.

    I definitely think that there is a coterie of professional enviros who are working for free to prop up the Campbell Tax - that much is certainly clear.

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    " ... coterie of professional enviros ... " YUP!

    G West
    I definitely think that there is a coterie of professional enviros who are working for free to prop up the Campbell Tax - that much is certainly clear.

    I agree that for the last year or two there's been a group of "enviros" working flat out for the Liberals, at both federal and provincial levels. However, I don't think that all or even most of them are truly unpaid volunteers.

    I think most are paid through another source, such as a professor's "research grant". They are probably mostly senior undergrad or grad students paid to do research by a grant from NSERC or SSHRC and they probably do some actual data gathering, statistics, literature searches, etc. My guess is that this eats up about a half of their work day. The rest?

    Well, when you're a grad student and the professor who selected you for a comfortable non-demanding job is going on and on about how Carole James and Jack Layton and the NDP aren't supporting the carbon tax, and how bloody horrible this is, and is preparing op-ed pieces on the subject, the student doesn't need a highlighted copy of Politics 101 for Imbeciles and Cretins to figure out what to do with the other half of the day.

    One example of the kind of psuedo-campus mentality involved came just after the 200 university economists sent their "open letter" on climate policies to the media and put it into a special website:

    http://econ-environment.ca/

    There was a Facebook group setup to support the open letter which seems to be organized by current and immediate past students of the professors in question including the usual Liberal groupies, bunnies and playmates. It's as if Pierre Trudeau were still 48 and running all over again, the swinging parties for the beautiful people never seem to end in Liberal Land, ... except of course for Bill Cunningham, who never quite fit that mold to begin with.

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29189887901&ref=mf

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    3 years ago

    Gordon Campbell's song after

    Gordon Campbell's song after he loses:

    Poor, poor pitiful me,
    poor poor pitiful me,
    Could not sell that I love trees,
    Lord have mercy on me,
    All BC trees are diseased,
    whoo is me.

    Well, I strummed my guitar up in Merrit
    Hoped the mopes up there might share-it,
    New I could not win with Softwood facts,
    So I tried to sell my Howe Street carbon tax.

    Poor, poor pitiful me
    poor poor pitiful me,
    The people of BC are startin' to shout,
    No there going to kick my bad ass out.

    Repeat Chorus--while chugging Lavoris.

    That's it

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Glen

    That's priceless....thanks - hope you don't mind if I pass it around.

    You're right Budd - it's a kind of group-think made worse by the idea that they're never wrong.

    Interesting piece in the NYTimes today about the same phenomenon in the economic sphere.

    Here's the link:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/business/02view.html?8dpc=&_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1225670741-Yj7vXDw8FANH2HngFteKVQ

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    Garth opines :

    "I definitely think that there is a coterie of professional enviros who are working for free to prop up the Campbell Tax - that much is certainly clear."

    Yer right, Garth - the same bunch who promote CO2-induced Global Warming - and for the same reasons you mention.

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    Thanks G West

    That was a great article on the tendency of economists to ignore potential bubbles, including housing market bubbles.

    Just think how intense the pressure is on every economist or market analyst in Greater Vancouver when the talk turns to the market price of housing here. To their credit, some have now begun to say that price decreases are going to carry on through next year, perhaps as much as 10 or even 15 percent, a radical departure from their never-ending, onward and upward speeches of just six months ago.

    But do you see anyone seriously doing any rent-price ratio analyses and saying here's where prices ought to land? Heavens no. They would have to forecast a reduction in prices of at least 50% if they did, and they dare not say that even now.

  • gassyandy

    3 years ago

    we the poor

    That about sizes it up, I have to live on less than a $1000 a month, I am on a disability and I constantly hear people who
    are not only judgmental but belligerent as well.

    I am one of the people who hold real STOCK in
    the 2010 Olympics. I am one of those who helped this province produce a surplus budget because I am one of the poor unable to afford the time to fight for my democratic right to
    live at least at the poverty level.

    No I am too busy trying to survive every day that I cannot afford to waste my time on a futile effort
    to make ignorant people understand that this
    government, and you the people should all
    be so ashamed of what you have done to
    this provinces disadvantaged. The history
    books will tell the tale in the future.
    and you the people will be looked upon
    as savage and mean. Your namesakes will
    all pay the price in the future. but again
    are you not already living on credit!!!!!

  • cboo44

    3 years ago

    Hydro Power R&D

    "As for accelerated R&D on energy, private interests will fill the need when energy prices are sufficient to support profitable alternative energy sources"

    Why does it have to be "private interests" ? We ALREADY have a very experienced, leading edge power company in BC called BC HYDRO. It is Liberal policy to artificially inflate the price of power in BC ("All energy is going up")in order to make it profitable for the private developers to build on and control OUR streams and rivers.
    Whatever happened to the philosophy of BC Hydro under W.A.C. Bennett to build hydro power infrastructure, sell power IN B.C. at a price that encouraged CLEAN INDUSTRY and export power at market value to ensure a very high level of profit for B.C. Hydro and the people of B.C. who actually OWNED the rivers? What happened to the idea that B.C. Hydro(owned and ultimately responsible to the people of B.C.) was the sole developer of OUR stream/river power generation?
    If B.C. continues to pander to private interests, we are going to wake up to a world that is only known in Europe, privately owned and controlled waterways that are totally polluted ("beautiful Rhine, my a$$!) and have restricted access. This damn Campbell government is trying to sell off our heritage for the purpose of making his budget look good. Stop it.

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    cboo44

    If Campbell was as interested in encouraging industry in BC as he says he is, he would keep Hydro rates low for both employers and us employees, making BC more competitive.

    But that's long-range planning, not the showy short-term stuff useful for winning elections.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.