- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
NDP's Carbon Math Is Wrong
But trying to chase the real numbers can drive you bonkers.
NDP environment critic Shane Simpson.
I'm warning you, folks, stay away from the carbon tax debate.
It will drive you crazy.
You will hear people make arguments about the carbon tax and you will expect them to make sense and then you will realize that they don't make sense and you will start screaming like a debutante in rehab. You will try to make numbers add up and you will realize that they don't add up and you will punch the buttons on your calculator until you end up gibbering like a Sterno-swilling bonobo.
People are saying things about the carbon tax that aren't true. They are saying things that are kinda sorta maybe almost half-true. They are saying things that are going to rattle around inside your brain until you feel like you've snorted up a swarm of hornets.
I write a lot about the carbon tax. This means reading a lot of numbers about greenhouse gas emissions. Sometimes these numbers seem at first like they don't add up but then they do, kind of.
Sometimes these numbers really don't add up, though. And because I am a guy who likes logic and order, this bugs me. Like having a picture on your wall that just ... won't ... hang ... straight.
The figure 2.8 per cent is a number that bugs me.
The New Democratic Party likes the figure 2.8 per cent. They use it a lot when they talk about the carbon tax.
"Even the Campbell government admits that the fuel tax will barely make a dent on our overall emissions, reducing them by only 2.8 per cent by 2020," the NDP says in its climate change framework, released in June.
Opposition leader Carole James keeps repeating that annoyingly precise figure of 2.8 per cent when she kooks out on the carbon tax.
There are only two things wrong with 2.8 per cent:
1) The government has never used it.
2) It's based on weird NDP math.
Turns out the number they should be using is closer to four per cent.
Why it matters
So, you say, who cares? What's a few percentage points in the grand scheme of things?
You're probably right. Trying to fact-check a B.C. political debate is kind of like being the referee in a fencing match between two guys using chainsaws. You tend to get the feeling that you shouldn't worry too much about the fine points.
But let's just assume for a minute that facts and numbers count for something when we're discussing public policy. Even little numbers. Ones like 2.8 per cent.
And let's assume that it's important to know what the government did say about the impact of the carbon tax, back in last February's budget.
According to the budget:
"A preliminary estimate by M. K. Jaccard and Associates suggests that in the absence of other GHG reduction policies, the carbon tax could reduce BC's GHG emissions in 2020 by up to 3 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent annually."
You'll note some heavy duty qualifiers there. The tax "could" reduce emissions by "up to" three million tonnes. Presumably, it could reduce emissions by a lot less. I've been trying to get someone in the government to explain this sentence to me for more than a month. So far no luck.
So maybe it won't really be three million tonnes. But Opposition environment critic Shane Simpson told me that three million tonnes is what the NDP chose to work with when they calculated their 2.8 per cent figure.
How the NDP did its math
I've outlined the details in all their brain-cramping glory in a sidebar that runs at the end of this story. But here's the short version:
That 2.8 per cent is based on an NDP estimate that puts "business as usual" emissions in 2020 at about 105 million tonnes, Simpson said. That's the total amount of greenhouse gases that we'd be emitting in 2020 if we don't change our ways.
The NDP calculated that figure based on an apparent belief that the government's climate change targets call for a 33 per cent emissions reduction from those 2020 business-as-usual levels.
In fact, the targets call for a 33 per cent reduction from 2007 levels. This makes a significant difference when you do the math.
Calculating the impact of the carbon tax using various 2020 estimates produced by environmental groups and the B.C. and federal governments suggests that the carbon tax could bring an emissions reduction of up to approximately four per cent, rather than 2.8.
The 2.8 Per Cent Solution, Isn't
The NDP's 2.8 per cent is a curiously precise number for something that's based on an extrapolation of a conditional forecast given as a range of numbers describing something that could happen in 12 years.
It's good to keep in mind that all these numbers are estimates, based on a lot of assumptions that will change with the price of oil, the growth of the population and the health of the economy.
Depending on which set of assumptions you choose, the carbon tax could cut up to 3.5 per cent of total 2020 business-as-usual emissions. Or it could cut up to 3.75 per cent. Or it could cut up to 3.8 per cent.
Better to round it off and remember that "up to" means "could be less."
Anything else starts to look a bit like what they call false precision.
-- Tom Barrett
NDP off by 25 per cent
Now, this might sound like a lot of quibbling over a few percentage points. But, aside from the questions this raises about the NDP's understanding of climate change targets, it's worth noting that 3.5 -- the carbon tax reductions as a percentage of the highest business-as-usual number given by the province -- is 25 per cent greater than 2.8.
And, to put those three million tonnes in perspective, they are about eight per cent of the government's reduction goal for 2020, as calculated by the NDP.
Compare them to the 1.6 million tonnes in annual reductions the government expects to get from doubling transit ridership by 2020, a goal that Simpson said the NDP supports.
The projected annual emissions savings from the carbon tax, which Simpson described as "minuscule," are almost double the projected cuts from massively expanded transit, which he said is an important part of fighting climate change.
What are they trying to poll?
And it's not as if this example of fuzzy math is the only confusing aspect of the NDP's attack on the carbon tax.
An NDP-sponsored poll released last week found considerable opposition to the carbon tax.
Respondents were asked if they agreed with the following statement: "With the government's $100 climate change dividend, most British Columbians come out ahead on the tax."
Most people disagreed.
Then they were asked what they thought about this one: "It is unfair that major industrial polluters don't have to pay the carbon tax, while ordinary consumers do."
Most people agreed that this was unfair.
Their responses are understandable. Both questions echo NDP rhetoric used in their "axe the tax" campaign against the carbon tax. And both, to put it charitably, could lead to confusion about the facts.
The first question might easily be taken to mean that the $100 dividend is the only money British Columbians are going to get to offset the carbon tax. There's no mention of the offsetting tax cuts.
And someone listening to the second question might be forgiven for thinking it means that industry doesn't pay the carbon tax. In fact, virtually everyone in the province who burns fossil fuels will pay the tax -- businesses and consumers alike. According to the government, two-thirds of all carbon tax revenues will come from business -- a figure that no one has challenged to my knowledge.
'Just plain wrong'
Economist Marc Lee, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, has written about the NDP's tendency to muddy the debate.
"I have been frustrated that the NDP continues to play the carbon tax as not applying to industry," he writes.
"This is just plain wrong."
About 70 per cent of B.C.'s emissions come from burning fossil fuels. Some of the rest comes from agriculture and from landfills.
Then there are the gases described by a coalition of environmental groups as "emissions released intentionally or unintentionally during the production, processing, and transmission of fossil fuels in the oil and gas sector, such as leaks from natural-gas pipelines. Another example is the production of lime in making cement, which has carbon dioxide as a byproduct."
The groups figure these gases total about 16 per cent of all emissions. They aren't captured by the carbon tax; the government intends to regulate them under a cap and trade system that involves three other provinces and seven U.S. states. There's also a possibility these emissions will be included under the carbon tax once the government gets a better handle on how to measure them.
These industrial emissions are a significant part of the problem, to be sure. But that's not the same as saying that "major industrial polluters don't have to pay the carbon tax, while ordinary consumers do."
Crazy, isn't it?
SIDEBAR:
STILL WITH ME? TIME FOR SOME CARBON NUMBERS HOMEWORK
To understand the NDP's math, you have to know a bit about how greenhouse gas emissions targets are calculated. This is where the story starts to read like homework.
By provincial law, B.C. must cut its emissions by 33 per cent below last year's levels by 2020.
Unfortunately, we don't know yet what last year's levels were. We can guess though: probably they'll fall somewhere around 65 million tonnes.
If that turns out to be the right number, then the government will have to get emissions down to about 44 million tonnes -- 65 million minus 33 per cent.
But to do that, the government will have to do more than just cut 21 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. Without policies designed to cut emissions, economic expansion and population growth would cause a steady increase in emissions between now and 2020.
The number that forecasts what will happen if we don't change our ways is called a "business as usual" figure. The total amount of emissions that have to be cut equals the business-as-usual figure minus the 44 million tonne target.
There have been a number of different estimates of that 2020 business-as-usual figure. Numbers from the government and other sources range from 78 million tonnes to 85 million tonnes.
It's this 2020 business-as-usual figure that the NDP uses as a benchmark when it says the three million tonne reduction from the carbon tax will cut emissions by only 2.8 per cent in 2020.
The problem is, three million isn't 2.8 per cent of any of the business-as-usual numbers we just mentioned.
If you assume 2020 emissions will be in the range of 78-85 million tonnes, then the carbon tax represents a cut of about four per cent.
For three million tonnes to represent 2.8 per cent of total emissions in 2020, the 2020 figure would have to be 107 million tonnes.
That's 25 per cent above the highest number ever given by the government.
When he was asked about this, Simpson said he would check with NDP staff.
Here's the answer he came back with:
The NDP worked out the 2.8 per cent figure based on some numbers in a speech given last September by Premier Gordon Campbell, Simpson said. Campbell was talking about the government's progress toward its 33 per cent reduction goal.
The NDP calculated from Campbell's figures that the government believed it needs to cut "about 36, 37 million tonnes" in 2020, Simpson said. (It actually works out to 40 million tonnes, but as we shall see that doesn't really matter.)
"So then we said, 'OK, if it takes 36, 37 million tonnes to get all the way there and that's going to be a third of overall emissions, then what number are we dealing with?'" Simpson said. "We figured something about 105 million tonnes."
Three times 36 is 108 -- close enough to 105.
A three-million-tonne reduction, then, works out to roughly 2.8 per cent of the 2020 business-as-usual emissions as calculated by the NDP.
Which would make sense if the government's targets called for a one-third reduction from 2020 emissions levels.
But they don't.
They're based on 2007 emissions, as we've already noted.
Doing the math the NDP way produced a very big number for 2020 which, conveniently, made the three-million-tonne reduction projected for the carbon tax seem less significant in comparison.
And it's not as if the 2020 business-as-usual number was a secret.
Last October, The Vancouver Sun reported that the government was giving presentations that used the figure of 80-85 million tonnes for business-as-usual emissions in 2020. At around the same time, other sources, including the federal government and the Pembina Institute, were using similar figures.
Simpson acknowledged that there have been a number of estimates of 2020 emissions in the 78-85 million tonne range.
"As we put our final [election platform] piece together, we will adjust to that number," he said. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- BC snuffs out AirCare test program
- AFN national chief Shawn Atleo to launch re-election bid
- Citizens group releases video to fight undead Bill C-30
- Conservative MP says he might vote against budget, then 'clarifies' his position
- Genetically modified plants won't take root with councillors in Richmond, BC
- Hundreds at Vancouver rally to support Quebec students
- Could Fort Mac become an eco-tourist hotspot?
- Rick Hansen's Man in Motion anniversary tour concludes in Vancouver
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Should You Run from that Medical Test?
- 'The Dictator'
- Death in Remand: Stacked Deck
- 'Moonrise Kingdom'
- From Financial Advisor to Occupier
- Seven Goals to Build the Conservative 'Dream'
- Double lung recipient dances on Ellen show
- ISS astronauts grab DragonX space capsule by the tail with Canada Arm
- Metro Vancouver gas prices peak at record levels
- Ottawa posts $9-billion deficit in March despite pledge to avoid spending spree
- BC phases out AirCare to focus on fighting bigger vehicle emissions
- Tsunami senors to be dropped into deep sea off of Vancouver Island
- Student groups file court challenge against Quebec protest law
- ...while on the streets, pirates and ninjas put aside mutual animosity to join student protests
84
Login or register to post comments
Grumpy
3 years ago
Scams, damned scams and lies
The Carbon Tax is a cruel hoax a "tax the rube scheme", by one of the most evil governments this province has ever had. The carbon tax is a gas tax, pure and simple, but Campbell has sold it to the media and others as the great against global warming. It isn't, it is a tax and a tax is a tax.
The academics love it because they can get millions in taxpayer's dollars in the form of grants to do study after mind numbing study of the carbon tax. This is 'welfare for the elites'.
A gas tax hurts the poor, the elderly and all those on fixed incomes. Oh yes, I know Campbell is offering an annual bribe to pretend to off set the carbon tax, but only the rich will pretend it works.
You want to really reduce pollution, then take Campbell's $3 billion to refurbish the Expo Line and build 10 km. more SkyTrain in Surrey and
1) Reinstate the interurban from Vancouver to Chilliwack.
2) Rebuild the Fraser River Rail Bridge and Putallo Bridge with a new combined structure.
3) Build LRT from BCIT to UBC and Stanley Park
4) Build real LRT on the Evergreen Line from BCIT to SFU; Coquitlam and Port Moody;and New Westminster.
There a large LRT network that would provide the many destinations to attract the motorist from the car.
It will not be done because Bombardier Inc. controls the transit planning in the provincial government. how else could one explain Vancouver's unique SkyTrain light-metro planning.
RickW
3 years ago
Semantics
It's like trying to decide what clothes to wear while the house is burning to the ground.
The fact is (if nothing else) that the emissions we put into the air, soil, and water, are ruinous to our health and for that reason alone should be eliminated.
But regardless of that, the proof is in the pudding, and while the Liberals have CLAIMED to be doing something, their actions speak much louder than words.
Grumpy says it best.
And there are other ideas "out there" that cost but a fraction of the gold-plated "solutions" the Libs have either funded or proposed:
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/letters/story.html?id=b78d70f1-f3a0-4135-9d8c-2d45639eed3a
Now whether or not the NDP would offer up something more practical than the Libs is problematical. But we know for sure that the Libs' "solutions" aren't.........
JIm
3 years ago
The article state that the
The article state that the emission reductions from the tax will be "double the projected cuts from massively expanded transit".
"But regardless of that, the proof is in the pudding, and while the Liberals have CLAIMED to be doing something, their actions speak much louder than words."
Huh? Isn't the huge uproar because the Liberals are actually doing something instead of just talking about it.
Frank
3 years ago
Tom Barrett
It sounds like you believe the increase in the gas tax will reduce emissions by 4%?
May I ask how much you expect emissions to have gone down this past year as gas prices rose to $1.50? Because wouldn't the numbers be around the 40% to 50% zone if 2.4 cents leads to a 4% reduction?
So, since the past year is now history when do we find out that emissions in the province fell by 40%(+)?
In my opinion the NDP can use any number they want because Campbell's numbers are all meaningless crap.
Van Isle
3 years ago
Here we go again. How come
Here we go again. How come all the political parties have to put "spin" on any topic; why can't the just lay out the facts and quit the Bullshit? Then they wonder why everybody gets pissed-off and considers politians lower than a snakes belly. This is addressed to politians. You know the demographics for the voters is getting older and a huge lot of that are baby-boomers. Baby-boomers era mean-average age is now about 50. A phenomena happens when a person approaches the age of 50; it's called "Loss of tolerance for Bullshit". Of course this doesn't happen overnight it just one of those things that builds up and builds up until the individual says "enough already" and of course, they react. Some men go and chase younger women, some shoot themselves, some just don't care anymore and just go to work to rip-off the company. Many of them retire and say "isn't life grand and I'm not gonna take it anymore" and they just turn off when they hear bullshit. Hope you got the message.
G West
3 years ago
Utter nonsense - and math has very little to do with it.
The worst thing about the Campbell Tax is that it purports to be revenue neutral.
Even if the accounting exercise of collecting the tax and offsetting its revenue (with pander payments and more tax reductions for Campbell’s already under-taxed friends) in the province’s financial accounts each fiscal year (read the Bill, it’s all in there), the suggestion that it does not create another costly bureaucratic nightmare for both the finance ministry and every vendor of hydro-carbons in the province is risible. They’ve already wasted some 30 – 40 million dollars distributing the first hundred bucks of Campbell cash on the first of July. The suggestion that this is revenue neutral is a joke. The only people for whom it’s revenue neutral are the folks in the airline and cruise ship industry – who don’t have to pay the Campbell tax at all.
Funny how none of the green folks ever mention ‘that’ fact?
This is nothing more than a money laundering scheme that will do absolutely nothing to reduce C02 emissions. That’s exactly what it was designed to do – to give the impression of ‘caring’ – but like everything else Gordon Campbell has ever done in his public life, all the man cares about is himself.
Even his former finance minister was taken in by this bill – she thinks the legislation created by others for her to sign is ground breaking. What are the words she used: “…once in a while we have a chance to make a difference…”
Well, Carole, you need to read that legislation again – because you DID have a chance – but you listened to the Premier and his little group of advisers led by Mark Jaccard and Andrew Weaver– when you should have used your common sense.
As Frank pointed out above, and as others, including myself, have pointed out dozens of times since this whole debate started, if a 40 - 50 % in the price of crude oil has had some small impact in the production of greenhouse gasses from automobiles - and that effect will be vanishingly small as crude prices begin to come down - then the idea that a money laundering of 7c/litre over the next three years will have any significant effect is laughable: Especially when the actual effect of the tax is negated by further tax reductions to the very people whose irresponsible driving habits and consumptive lifestyles are already at the heart of the problem.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
ONLY FUNNY MATH HERE IS BARRETT'S
" ... But, aside from the questions this raises about the NDP's understanding of climate change targets, it's worth noting that 3.5 -- the carbon tax reductions as a percentage of the highest business-as-usual number given by the province -- is 25 per cent greater than 2.8."
Whenever a trained, professional writer starts preparing paragraphs like this, you know that you're about to be used. Barrett's entire column is pure manipulation, and it's hardly original.
It's in the same category as other pieces by Jaccard and Lee, and for that matter Suzuki. It's part of a Liberal strategy to completely co-opt the environmental vote, and it looks like it's working among the career environmentalists and many academic economists. Clearly these people don't like the federal Conservatives, so they're going Liberal federally, and to complete the mission they're giving the provincial Liberals their full backing too, because they figure the Campbell Govt will be re-elected anyway, so why not get onside. It could come in handy at university budget time!
Barrett makes a fuss over NDP claims that business is getting exemptions. They are. Cruise lines and airlines don't pay the full tax, only on that part of the fuel they're burning in BC. BC drivers who gas up and then travel out of province pay on the entire tank full, thank you.
But the biggest exemption is the mineral fuels industry. They only pay a carbon tax on the fuel they burn in their equipment, not on all the new oil, gas and coal they produce, which is going to get burned somewhere. The theory here, as economists like Jaccard and Lee can explain, is to tax consumption of the product. That's fair enough, especially if you like consumpstion taxes.
But that begs a basic question. Who really encourages more GHG production, the industries that put millions of tons of fossil fuels onto the market, or the average consumer who burns a one-ten-trillionth share of it?
The BC Govt's TV ads on the carbon tax also push hard the message that it's average consumers who are at the bottom of climate change problems, not business. That's an ideological predisposition that Jaccard and Lee, and Barrett too, are promoting every bit as much as the BC Govt's advertising campaign.
G West
3 years ago
Furthermore
Any revenue from the tax would have to go directly towards addressing C02 levels through transit, converting existing gas engines to diesel, increasing rail transport and providing alternatives for people who are already forced into ridiculous commutes to jobs they need from houses they can only afford because they AREN'T in the cities where they work. This is the world Gordon Campbell and generations of his ilk have created - to now suggest these people are going to do anything about it is the height of foolishness - even the $2000 pander payment to get older cars off the roads is nothing more than a reach-around to his friends in the New Car Dealers Association - it has nothing to do with reducing anything.
Check out the details of what will happen to any of those old cars...no matter what shape they're in.
Furthermore, the nonsensical suggestion that 'green' groups of various shades have made that the re-investment of Campbell cash is going to do anything but make a lot of self-absorbed enviros 'feel' good about themselves is even more absurd.
Axe the tax or turn it into something real.
Otherwise, forget it and quit pretending.
Grumpy
3 years ago
Lies, damned lies and statistics
Let's face it, any number or calculation used by the Liberals or the NDP are questionable, unless they are minutely vetted by the Auditor General.
Example 1) Take SkyTrain, Grumpy's favourite hobby-horse, if we used BC Transit's and Translink's claimed ridership numbers and annual increases in ridership from 1986 on, the wee metro sould be carrying over 1,000,000 passengers a day!
Example 2) The government and TransLink claims that SkyTrain operates at a profit, but they do not apportion fares between sea-bus, the buses and SkyTrain, and the metro is subsidized by the province, over $200 million annually.
Example 3) The government and TransLink claim that RAV cost about $1.9 billion, yet figures taken from their documents show the cost of RAV is nearly $2.5 billion.
Example 4) Ridership numbers on SkyTrain, that Kevin Falcon happily used to sell RAV and now using to funnel $3 billion again into the Expo Line, didn't pass Falcon's smell test when TransLink used the same numbers, claiming that fare evasion wasn't a big issue!
On and on it goes.
The 'Carbon Tax' is nothing more than a scheme to dupe the questionably intelligent that the Campbell Liberals are doing something for the environment, instead of creating a new gas tax.
My god! They sent a $100 bribe to every voter in BC!
You want to lower emissions in BC, then we must find new power sources (wind, solar, tidal, hydro) and create a transit system that will attract the motorist from the car!
In BC, the government pulls what ever numbers it wants to sell their agenda, and I'm so surprised that so many in the media have been conned by Campbell's new gas tax!
NicS
3 years ago
Talk Is Cheaper Than Action
The Liberals and Gordon Campbell have parlayed their Carbon Tax into the biggest public relations scam in the North American world of Green Washing. The NDP have to counter with something and because this issue involves alot of fuzzy logic, they now have the same opportunity to oppose Gordo's fuzzy Liberal logic with NDP logic.
On balance, the Liberal's record on the environment is definitely in the minus category. The NDP's record is still in the plus category. Yet BC's environmental groups, the CCPA, The Tyee feel required to hold the NDP's feet to the environmental fires of "accuracy in Carbon Tax numbers".
Gordon Campbell has pulled the wool over your principled eyes and no you can't see the Liberals true environmental record for their Carbon Tax spin.
All of you who support the Liberals Carbon Tax are simply supporting "The Liberal Ways" of obfuscating issues so one doesn't know whats up and whats down. If your expecting a truly coherent opposition to another of Gordon Campbells well spun yarns, then your understanding of politics in this province is sadly lacking.
Make no mistake. While you dither on the numbers that even the experts don't agree on, the Liberals are running up the middle with the ball with no opposition in site.
Ask yourself. "Am I prepared to have The Liberals run this province into the ground for another 4 years?"
realisticman
3 years ago
★ meaningless crap & Utter nonsense ★
Tom Barrett
It's based on weird NDP math.
All this kerfuffle over who's platform is more righteous. CO2 really does make one sleepy. Iiii'm yawning already.
spark.1234
3 years ago
What do global warming and
What do global warming and santa have in common?
They both make you behave like good little boys all year, and they're both a big fat hoax.
realisticman
3 years ago
Priming the Suckers
Maybe Al Gore has invested heavily in the composting-toilets business and he's just priming the pumps, so to speak.
spark.1234
3 years ago
"In a report titled "The
"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism.
G West
3 years ago
keep fiddling
http://www.sei.se/index.php
Al Gore is about as relevant as Gordon Campbell.
Anyone who cares should look at California's success in achieving energy efficiency - a program that started long before the current governator turned into a California version of the Green Hulk.
I don't often post links from the Wall Street Journal...but then there's a first time for everything,
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/08/06/get-smart-energy-efficiency-and-the-battle-for-more-power/
Time to step off the growth at any cost merry-go-round.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
The Great Canadian Carbon Debate
...weird NDP math...fuzzy math...
NDP's tendency to muddy the debate...
Crazy, isn't it?
Yep, most BC'ers couldn't agree more.
Everyone here seems to focus upon the Liberal climate change plan.
I will again re-iterate, since the NDP is purporting to become government, they have come out with their own "Climate Action Framework".
And page 5 therein unequivocally states:
http://bcndp.ca/upload/20080613125311_080613climatechangeFramework.pdf.pdf
So when are we gonna get the info on the "cost to consumers" of the NDP's version of the carbon tax????
Or is the NDP too chicken to tell BC'ers????
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
NIcS: ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
NicS
The Liberals and Gordon Campbell have parlayed their Carbon Tax into the biggest public relations scam in the North American world of Green Washing. ...
You're absolutely right, Nic. Just look at the BC Govt's TV commercials. This is all about spin and image-making and targetting the "green" vote.
"... The NDP's record is still in the plus category. Yet BC's environmental groups, the CCPA, The Tyee feel required to hold the NDP's feet to the environmental fires of "accuracy in Carbon Tax numbers".
You forgot the academic economists who are also on the train to Liberal heaven.
That the ENGOs signed on is not a surprise, given that they have federal level anti-Tory needs and wants. They started hating Jack Layton and Nathan Cullen because they accepted the Liberal line that the NDP, by helping to sink the Sponsorship Party, had brought the Conservatives to power. By extension if nothing else they had no time for the provincial NDP either, despite the party's strong record on environmental issues when in government, and the provincial Liberal's weak record.
This whole debate for the ENGOs is not about policy. It is about politics and their organizations' material needs and wants.
Gordon Campbell has pulled the wool over your principled eyes and no you can't see the Liberals true environmental record for their Carbon Tax spin.
"Principled"? If you want to be polite, call them pragmatic. If you want to be less polite, call them opportunisic. If you want to be blunt, call them materialistic. Career environmentalists have mortgages and yes, even car loans, just like working people. But these people have got so much class they don't have to even acknowledge that point!
Ask yourself. "Am I prepared to have The Liberals run this province into the ground for another 4 years?"
Tom Barrett's answer to that question couldn't be more clear, Nic. He want's at least eight more years, if not sixteen, and he's proven his willingness to do everything he possibly can to help make that happen.
politico
3 years ago
Numbers eh?
This stuff about the numbers is pure rubbish.
The facts aside from the numbers are clear.
The BC Liberal Carbon tax is a punitive and regressive tax that bears little consequence when considering the overall affect of GHG emissions.
It is steeped in favour of corporations.
It is another Campbell wealth transfer policy.
It offloads guilt and cost onto individuals whom are the least able to afford it and the least guilty.
It was a poll driven policy cooked up to salvage the hypocritical BC Libs.
It is supported by certain sects of the environmental movement largely due to the fact they believe they will gain leverage over the considerable pool of funds created by the tax.
It is business as usual for the largest perpetrators of environmental destruction.
spark.1234
3 years ago
bravo politico
I would add to your list:
It is eventually going to be another method of control over the individual through a 'carbon credit' card - probably tied to the new BC drivers license (Real ID in the making)
It will be used as an excuse to bring in a world government.
snert
3 years ago
Yup
This article cleared things up by about 2.8% or was that 4% or did we just witness a new branch of mathematics being born.
politico
3 years ago
Spark 1234 - Regardless of the NWO stuff
The real big thing I left out is the simple fact that none of these ridiculous policies actually encourage alternatives for us to choose from when working to avoid the punitive nature of these polices.
It is clear to me that few alternatives exist for most and all the alternatives suggested by the policy makers come with extensive costs, which are unrealistic to many.
Additionally it seems odd to me that no one is debating the fact that we already pay A HUGE CARBON TAX or at least what should be considered the equivalent thereof.
We subsidy the largest GHG emitting industries with tax breaks and outright cash infusions while building the infrastructure they need to exploit the resources we give them for pennies on the dollar!! All the while trade agreements tie us up in knots, make us pay exhorbinatley for the petroleum products produced with OUR resources and we have no guarantee of our supply into the future.
It is to weep.
JL
3 years ago
Gas tax? Good!
Why is a "gas tax" (as the NDP call it) seen as a bad thing? It is not a tax on the poor. I can't afford a car, which is why I live close to where I work and walk everywhere. Now drivers have to pay more and I get a tax break. This seems fair to me! Let's make driving MORE unaffordable!
So good on ya Gordo (I just died a little inside typing that). Hopefully the NDP will stop supporting drivers (a.k.a. pandering) and start supporting the environment (a.k.a. showing leadership). While I'm dreaming, I'd also like to be an astronaut.
politico
3 years ago
JL GAS TAX GOOD FOR ENVIRONMENT
Here is some more good news for ya!
Consider increasing carbon tax, B.C. urged
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=c175b233-68ff-45bf-b42c-21b0dab48b55
Carbon tax likely to keep going up
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=126ef6a3-98ec-4fd9-a56a-32adffc9fd48
alive
3 years ago
spin and more spin
Yeah, and try to look at their website livesmart bc. ----------- there is absolutely nothing there but BS!
This is what we are paying taxes for?
spark.1234
3 years ago
JL
Because it's supposedly there to reduce carbon emissions. Frank made the key point when he said: "May I ask how much you expect emissions to have gone down this past year as gas prices rose to $1.50? Because wouldn't the numbers be around the 40% to 50% zone if 2.4 cents leads to a 4% reduction?
So, since the past year is now history when do we find out that emissions in the province fell by 40%(+)?"
ITS A TAX. People will be forced to pay it and there is no benefit for the environment since individuals represent such a miniscule output of carbon compared to industry and natural causes and you're welcoming it.
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. - MODERATOR.]
G West
3 years ago
What a surprise!
Everyone here seems to focus upon the Liberal climate change plan.
Amazing Luke!
They happen to be the government - more's the pity - but hardly a surprise.
If Campbell had actually wanted to address climate change he'd have a different set of policies and he'd pass real laws to make some real change.
And more than 70% of the people in this province are smart enough to see through his current shade of greenwash.
Instead, he creates phony taxes which use up valuable and scare resources to pump more tax refunds back to the same people who've messed up the province and sold our assets offshore and down south.
BTW, you still haven't told us where the missing 800 million went on Gary Farrell Collins' one billion dollar sale of BCRail.
I know meals at the Villa del Lupo are expensive, but not that expensive.
When the NDP forms the government I'll have at them when they screw up - until then don't blame anyone for shooting at the target Campbell painted on himself.
G West
3 years ago
errata
that's 'scarce' resources.
sorry
lynn
3 years ago
Greenback environmentalism grows in the dark
CampBull's "phony green tie" initiatives, (and I'm sure he has more of these up his phony green sleeves in order to distract from the real corporate environmental plunder going on) are absolutely meaningless unless they include unfettered access to Freedom of Information.
frank2
3 years ago
Carbon Tax is GOOD
As a lifelong NDP supporter (and sometime candidate for the CCF) I am distressed at the NDP's populist know-nothing approach on this issue. I am reminded of Campbell's campaigns against photo radar and treaties with First Nations.
It is absolutely obvious that charging higher prices for something (while leaving other prices the same or lower) will lead to less of that something being consumed. And the effect will be greater, the more time there is is adjust. Moreover, if we are to make inroads on the GHG front, there will need to be (major) adjustments by all elements of society -- individuals, businesses, energy companies, governments etc. Changing relative prices has a critical role to play in this.
It is tragic in my view that the NDP did not
-- applaud the tax in principle
-- propose even higher rates
-- insist on charging for emissions not counted in the market (emissions during production of energy and other industries) more quickly, rather than hiding behind cap and trade ideas which may or may not arrive, and may or may not set low enough targets. Sure, there would be some glitches to work out -- but this would happen more quickly in the course of implementation.
-- suggest targetting the carbon tax proceeds on (a) filling the growing service gaps in our society, including ensuring an adequate standard of living for the lower income groups, and (b) investments in alternative energy and helping people to adjust to the new realities (including public transit).
-- excoriating the Liberal rebates for everyone as bribing us with our own money. (remember shovelling money off the back of a truck?)
Cavilling over 2.8% or 3.5% of a figure whose own size is but imperfectly known lets Simpson and James off far too easily.
This misjudgement will probably be damaging electorally, causing many Greens who might have been tempted to follow the NDP to remain Green or even support our "green" premier.
politico
3 years ago
Ah C'mon Frank
How many ways do you wanna have it?
The NDP is the opposition and, by golly, they are finally opposing.
The point is, you are correct that the "Axe the Tax" campaign has been poorly executed and you are not incorrect in suggesting that they could have forwarded a more in-depth policy framework but suggesting this will hurt the NDP is a calculated smear that only supports the enemies of the environment.
Quit making us dizzy with corporate spin and start ensuring the NDP corrects its campaign as the Liberals are attempting.
Maybe in the end we will actually get effective policies that help both people and the environment.
Frank
3 years ago
politico
frank2 and I are different people.
G West
3 years ago
frank2
How can you support, in principle or otherwise, a tax that does nothing, flies in the face of the economic principle of inelastic demand and, worst of all, lies about the notion that a 7c/litre rise in the price of gas will do anything at all in the face of a 40c/litre rise in price that illustrates amply how little demand responds to increases in price for certain kinds of economic goods? People just don’t have a lot of choice about buying and using gas – and hitting them over the head repeatedly with a wet noodle revenue neutral phony gas tax won’t help them.
I suppose you believe as well that successive increases in the excise tax on cigarettes is responsible for the success of a 30 year stop smoking program.
I have news for you - 'The smokers died.'
Exactly what's going to happen to the environment if we rely upon phony greenwash measures like the Campbell tax. Just because David Suzuki and his friends can’t turn down ‘any’ publicity doesn’t mean the rest of us need to give up our powers of analysis and stop paying any attention to the truth.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Scenario....
This is gonna get funny!
The NDP is currently on an "Axe the Tax" campaign because the carbon tax hurts consumers.
Yet.......
The NDP's own Climate Action Plan expressly states:
Hypocracy, anyone?????
Now, all parties are gonna have to come clean with the electorate before May, 2009...
And I just can't wait to see the hole that Carole James has dug herself into when she's gonna have to explain that one!!!!
It will likely be BC's finest political theater in the months proceeding May, 2009...
And the likely impact of the public perception of the NDP's hypocritical stance on carbon taxes, its own carbon taxes and its own cost to consumers???
Hmmmmmm... another 5% drop in the polls perhaps??? ;)
Look forward to it.
Frank
3 years ago
Say goodbye to Handy Dart
Handy Dart is being taken over by an American company and all the people there are being let go and hired back at non-union wages. The profit motive will not only hurt drivers it will also no doubt hurt the people that rely on that service.
I wonder how many emissions the province wil lsave by making sure little old ladies can't get to their appointments without selling the silverware.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
Speaking of hypocrisy, I don't recall the Libs in the last election campaign saying their plan for the environment was shutting down the forest industry.
By the way, how come there's no salmon fishing going on this year on the Fraser?
Anyone know the estimated lifespan of Burns Bog with the Libs in power?
True story, when you pay the extra 2.4 cents a litre it produces the exact same amount of emissions. Funny eh since the enviros seem to believe the opposite is true. Too bad for the Libs that the environment, doesn't care what the price of gas is.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
WHO IS frank2? SAME AS TOM, MARK, AND MARC
I don't know why I didn't clue into this earlier.
Tom Barrett did not write the article. It was prepared by (either/both) Marc Jaccard and/or Mark Lee, ... or is it Mark Jaccard and Marc Lee??? I suppose we could simplify by relabelling them as Mark I and Marc II with no loss of accuracy.
Similarly, frank2 is a psuedonymn for Marc I and/or Mark II. The giveaway lines are pretty obvious:
It is absolutely obvious that charging higher prices for something (while leaving other prices the same or lower) will lead to less of that something being consumed. ... Changing relative prices has a critical role to play in this.
- insist on charging for emissions not counted in the market (emissions during production of energy and other industries) ...
-- suggest targetting the carbon tax proceeds on (a) filling the growing service gaps in our society, including ensuring an adequate standard of living for the lower income groups, and (b) investments in alternative energy and helping people to adjust to the new realities (including public transit).
Besides the odd bit of pure economist trade jargon ("relative prices"), this text has a trademark (get it, ... tradeMARK!) flavour to it, especially the supposed emphasis on lower income groups and public transit. These bits of rhetorical bait are supposed to act as political attractants for:
... many Greens who might have been tempted to follow the NDP to remain Green or even support our "green" premier.
It's fairly clever stuff and is reminiscent of Mark I's standard cover story about his family being lifelong NDPers who are angry as Hell at Carol James for not falling to her knees in support of Mark's, ... er, ... {Heh, Heh}, ... I mean, ... Premier Gordon M. Campbell's carbon tax.
There's one other dead givaway, though:
As a lifelong NDP supporter (and sometime candidate for the CCF)
The last time it was the CCF was in 1961. The only one-time CCF candidates who are still alive and politically active in BC are Dave Barrett and Alex MacDonald. And neither of them is frank2 or frankx for that matter. Therefore, frank2 must be either Mark I or Marc II, or both Mark I #AND# Mark II!
G West
3 years ago
Hypocrisy???
Pardon me, but isn't that a textbook example?
The Campbell Tax I mean.
To suggest that a tax that takes in money at one end and spins it back to your friends at the other will actually achieve something is the definition of hypocrisy.
Taxation without purpose is as big a crime as taxation without representation. Sadly, for the majority of citizens in this province, that pretty much describes our current dilemma.
And the people of BC know it. As Rafe Mair pointed out in his latest column, it's just a question of finally understanding the actual 'meaning' of autocratic Campbell politics.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Budd...
Ummmm... Budd are you one of those guys who have always subscribed to the "second man on the grassy knoll" theory in '63??? ;)
Frank
3 years ago
Kennedy assasination
You really believe the Warren Commission that it was just Oswald?
Stump
3 years ago
I LOL'ed
Somebody's not familiar with the behaviour of addicts.
Grumpy
3 years ago
The Third Man
I like the 'third man' conspiracy theory myself, but what the hay. Back to Campbell's gas tax.
There are certain people, certain academics and certain politicians who believe they can cure an ill by a tax. While they hob nob, at taxpayers expense, at some expensive retreat, supping taxpayer paid wine, and eating taxpayer paid meals, dreaming up more ways to tax the people, the real taxpayer is hamstrung by no real income growth and an ever increasing tax burden.
A tax, is a tax, is a tax. No tax is revenue neutral and only politicians & bureaucrats, their cronies reap any benefits from increasing taxes.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
MISTER FAKE FACTS DOESN'T LIKE CONSPIRACISTS
Luke Skywalker
Ummmm... Budd are you one of those guys who have always subscribed to the "second man on the grassy knoll" theory in '63??? ;)
So, Mister Fake Economic Facts Himself, aka Luke Skywalker, doesn't like conspracists. I guess that's like the bumper sticker which says, Don't Steal, The Government Hates Competition.
frank2
3 years ago
economists, elasticities and CCF candidates
Mark and Marc are not the only two economists in BC!
Demand (even for gas) is NOT completely inelastic with respect to price, and elasticities are higher in the long run. For short run effects, just look at motorised tourist traffic this year, or the crash in demand for trucks and SUVs. The carbon tax itself won't do much at present or by 2012 -- but it marks a base on which to build the higher rates which will be necessary (if we indeed wish to address the GHG issue). The real devil is the no net increase promise, which guarantees that any increases will progressively favour the better off.
By the way, there are several surviving CCF candidates: Dave and Alex are the ones who were elected.
ME2
3 years ago
hypocrisy reigns
Grumpy calls the Gas Tax a "cruel hoax", but I see it as yet another example of Campbell's advisors stellar ability to sufficiently muddy an issue so as to make him a winner no matter how the issue plays itself out.
He's got the enviros on side by exploiting their predilection for embracing the "Mea Culpa" scam in which Joe Blow must assume guilt for environmental sinning and only they can show him/her the way to atone. That, of course, legitimises their "partnering" with gov't (and O, all those yummy grants).
So now while we're all repentant for using the oil etc, and he's somewhat assuaged our guilt by making the tax "revenue neutral", he can go on expediting the exploration and production of hydrocarbons so we can afford to keep our cars running - even if he says doing so is bad for us and him.
And once again, just as with the Tsawassen ALR scam, the NDP is left with vainly trying to figure a way out of playing catch-up in this mess of hypocrisy. As usual, the "silverbacks" in the NDP policy rooms have been caught fast asleep, seemingly unaware - even at this late date - that the old "solidarity forever" mantra doesn't cut much ice these days.
Sooner or later, they're going to find out that the fence they've been trying to straddle is made of barbed wire, and that getting disentangled won't be done without feeling some discomfort.
G West
3 years ago
No it doesn't
If it weren't revenue neutral and it actually tackled the whole problem - rather than exempting certain major producers like cruise ships and airlines you might have a point.
It doesn't and you don't.
Unless the proceeds of the tax are used to address the real problem then the pointlessness of the effort is profound and dishonest.
Like everything else Campbell has done and will do as long as he has power - which is, after all, the only thing the man cares about and understands. The only thing that is important to him.
Carole James is no genius, she has a lot to learn - but she has a moral core and a sense of the importance of equality of opportunity. She will learn on the job - Campbell started out thinking he knew everything and he's proved - by every action he's taken in public life - that he knows nothing except greed, selfishness and unenlightened self-interest.
Simply because a few publicity hounds from the environmental 'industry' like to see themselves on television and in the papers tells us more about their motivation than it does about anything else. No thinking citizen of this province can fail to see why this policy is a disaster – and a wastefully expensive one that will do nothing positive whatever about addressing global warming.
This is a hollow policy from a hollow man.
If crude prices drop back to below $80/bbl - which they may well do - then the Campbell tax will continue to be exactly what it is now - an irrelevant joke.
If people had an alternative to burning hydro carbons then demand for gasoline wouldn't be inelastic - that's the whole problem and that's why Campbell's tax and the people who support it are whistling on their way to the graveyard.
RickW
3 years ago
JIm
I said the Libs TALK about it, but do precious little about it. Can you tell me what they've actually done that isn't just tinkering around the edges?
DPL
3 years ago
I'll believe the carbon
I'll believe the carbon argument when the guys in those Tutors quit doing airshows in BC spweing out exhaust gases in large amounts, or when the helicopters quit going back and forth between Victoria and vancouver, or for that matter the Twin Otters doing the same. We sort of own a ferry system and it gets me to the big smoke when I want to go over periodically. I'm not imprtant enough to require a very short trip back and forth. I'm getting a bit tired of Suzuki and the commercials about how the little kids knw but their parents are just a bit stupid.
mcdull
3 years ago
Lets see on our oil
Lets see on our oil consumption to heat this old house it will cost $64.35 more at last years consumption of oil. It will cost about $30.00 more for propane to cook with and hot water.Then their is the extra in fuel of which we have to use as we do not have transit. We only heat house when somebody is at home and then only to 70 we don't use the stove as often but the microwave or electric frying pans.Yes revenue neutral my bare behind. Rural and small towns just don't have the choice. This is a bogus feel good tax for the city slickers and greens it is avery regresssive tax.
ME2
3 years ago
Negawatts vs Megawatts?
GWest posted above a Wall Street Journal link which introduced the new term (for me, anyway) of Negawatts which assumes that pursuing "energy efficiency" techniques such as installing "smart electricity meters" (which reward/punish users re using power during peak hours), co-generation by users (such as rooftop solar hot water heaters, wind energy, etc which we've discussed on previous threads), and various other means, adds up to the same thing as shutting down existing plants and/or not building new ones.
Perhaps if Campbell & Co showed greater initiative by actively promoting these alternatives, he might be more believable.
And since it has been pointed out that recovering investment over very long terms, such as with megadams, is not practical for private investors, perhaps he might take a page out of WAC Bennet's book, and put Public money into tidal power such as in VATs and the like, which are capital intensive.
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
WHICH SURVIVING CCF CANDIDATE HAS TIME FOR CAMPBELL'S GAS TAX?
frank2
Demand (even for gas) is NOT completely inelastic with respect to price, and elasticities are higher in the long run. For short run effects, just look at motorised tourist traffic this year, or the crash in demand for trucks and SUVs.
So, ... you propose to measure the elasticity of demand for gasoline by changes in sales of vehicles? What do you do for your next trick?
The carbon tax itself won't do much at present or by 2012
According to Tom, who is really either Mark I or Marc II, this tax will do twice as much as transit could ever hope to do.
By the way, there are several surviving CCF candidates: Dave and Alex are the ones who were elected.
Really. So which one are you claiming to be?
ME2
3 years ago
WE should teach THEM???
ECUADOR: NATURE HAS RIGHTS
Ecuadorian Assembly Approves Constitutional Rights for Nature
On July 7, the 130-member Ecuador Constitutional Assembly, elected
countrywide to rewrite the country's Constitution, voted to approve articles that recognize rights for nature and ecosystems.
"If adopted in the final constitution by the people, Ecuador would become the first country in the world to codify a new system of environmental protection based on rights," says Thomas Linzey, Executive Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.
The following clauses will be included in the constitution that will be submitted to a countrywide vote, to be held 45 days after Assembly finishes its work later this month:
Chapter: Rights for Nature
Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.
Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution.
Art. 2. Nature has the right to an integral restoration. This integral restoration is independent of the obligation on natural and juridical persons or the State to indemnify the people and the collectives that depend on the natural systems.
In the cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including the ones caused by the exploitation on non-renewable natural resources, the State will establish the most efficient mechanisms for the restoration, and will adopt the adequate measures to eliminate or mitigate the harmful environmental consequences.
Art. 3. The State will motivate natural and juridical persons as well as collectives to protect nature; it will promote respect towards all the elements that form an ecosystem.
Art. 4. The State will apply precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles.
The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic patrimony is prohibited.
Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing.
The environmental services cannot be appropriated; its production, provision, use and exploitation, will be regulated by the State.
"Public organisms" in Article 1 means the courts and government agencies, i.e., the people of Ecuador would be able to take action to enforce nature rights if the government did not do so.
realisticman
3 years ago
More Math
NPD MLAs Corky Evans, Michael Sather, David Chudnovsky, David Cubberley and Gregor Robertson are all stepping aside and not running in the next election.
As I understand it the party has a rule that new nominees must be women when MLA men resign. Not knowing them intimately, I presume these five people are men and, even thought the next election is months away, I'm somewhat surprised not to have read any commentary on this here at The Tyee.
G West
3 years ago
You haven't been paying attention
The policy has been noted, and criticized, in a fulsome way.
realisticman
3 years ago
Too busy working, I guess
I know that's no excuse for not paying attention. Have the resignations also been fulsomely discussed?
realisticman
3 years ago
Here's One
The NDP might want to promise this enviro topic in the next campaign.
Ed Deak might consider switching too.
BBC
Eat kangaroo to 'save the planet'
The methane gas produced by sheep and cows through belching and flatulence is more potent than carbon dioxide in the damage it can cause to the environment.
But kangaroos produce virtually no methane because their digestive systems are different.
G West
3 years ago
And now we've moved
From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Perhaps a new discussion could now be started to deal with the enormous and unjustified increases in salary for OIC appointment political appointees announced yesterday afternoon by 'junior' Murray Coell.
Apparently Jessica McDonald wasn't being sufficiently well paid for taking the premier's calls at all hours of the night.
The pigs, in anticipation of leaner times to come as the citizens wake up to what Campbell has been doing to and with the province, are ensuring their next few months' time at the trough will be enough to meet their greedy appetites.
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4f86ed87-910a-49f7-92ab-a159f2dac469
G West
3 years ago
At a time when
At a time when British Columbia still has the lowest minimum wage in the country, it is a mystery to me why the philosophy of you get what you pay for hasn't been shuffled off into the trash heap of history. Never have people meant to do the public’s business in this province come up shorter and more irresponsibly than this government has.
The arrogance and self-regard of the Campbell autocracy have no parallel.
This is the WORST GOVERNMENT this province has ever had. The fact that a potential NDP government might have a few more women or minorities in its ranks, not, nominally, a bad thing in itself, pales into insignificance relative to the record of the monomaniac who runs the place right now.
A rather modest woman of high moral and ethical standards would be, as a new premier, an exemplary outcome of the next election. Whatever shortcomings Carole James might have tend to disappear when she is put on the balance with the incumbent.
alive
3 years ago
Quote:A rather modest woman
Well put G West!
James is above reproach, but this is not a schoolboard election.
I do feel that a discussion is warranted on why candidates choose to not run next time?
Palmer indicated that James is the main cause for the disenchantement.
If so, then perhaps it would be better if James was the one to not run next election?
As I see it it is not significant how many women are nominated, but how many candidates (of any gender) are elected!
May the best man or woman win those nominations.
ME2
3 years ago
Sigh....
Whether it is Right or Left, having brains is not a requirement for holding to an ideology.
RickW
3 years ago
alive
If those who choose not to run, are doing so through a certain disenchantment with the current leader, then they must be disenchanted because, as Rafe Mair noted, Carole is not spewing forth fire and brimstone. Rafe is "of the old school" of bombast and rhetoric. Perhaps it is time for a new type of leadership, and pehaps Carole typifies that. Have to give her a chance. I mean, how badly can she screw up, compared to what we have to deal with now?
realisticman
3 years ago
GWest
Except for NB & PEI.
Nobody said it was, either. Interesting though. Four NDP resignations during peak summer holidays is also interesting.
G West
3 years ago
The fact that PEI is even a province is a joke
Do YOU think the current provincial minimum wage should be raised?
Campbell and his friends clearly don't - you can't be on both sides of the question - meanwhile taking pot shots at another party's attempt to make politics more representative.
Your other point is merely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, Campbell, pulling the threads for a minister whose questionable competence is clearly illustrated in another story which is also presented here at Tyee, is a far worse failure as a democratic leader than Carole James could ever be.
As to the other point, remember, THIS is what YOU wrote:
As I understand it the party has a rule that new nominees must be women when MLA men resign. Not knowing them intimately, I presume these five people are men and, even thought the next election is months away, I'm somewhat surprised not to have read any commentary on this here at The Tyee.
You obviously meant either to be mischievous or critical - and no one could mistake such a comment (out of the blue so to speak) as having anything whatever to do with the subject at hand. The man and his record are a testament to greed, selfishness, secrecy and a complete abrogation of the need for a government to be accountable.
A blight on both the province and the country. And the upcoming racket of the Olympics will provide much more of the same.
Agreed?
DPL
3 years ago
When asked about the big
When asked about the big rises yesterday while doing his thing in China, Gordo said that the Corporation needs to pay big salaries. Last time I looked BC was still a provicne not a corporation. The guy is a goof but a dangerous one as well. Provincial money is his, the resourses are his to sell. Time for a change at the levers of power. He pays those folks big bucks and if you don't remember, they report to him directly not to the ministers. The MLA ministers grovel as he wanders by, they want the cash and perks as well and to hell with the rest of the citizens. Can you visualize Murry Cole actually doing much of anything constructive, beyond getting elected? Coleman actually working as a company supervisor? Best of all Good Old Stan Hagen who must have trouble getting his clothes on in the morning all by himself?400 million ver budget Stan, what to do?
realisticman
3 years ago
Divert, Divert!
GWest
Jumping to strange conclusions and making accusations to divert the stream.
The subject of this article is NDP Math (not the Campbell government which you seem to only want to complain about) and you suggest that a query about four NDP resignations this week is "out of the blue"? Perhaps Corky Evans, Michael Sather, David Chudnovsky, David Cubberley don't like the NDP environment policy on carbon emissions. Many commentators here claim to occasionally vote for the NDP, I value and seek their opinions on this substantial mass departure from the NDP ranks of some prominent people, along with Gregor Robertson.
Perhaps there are commentators that have some opinions regarding these NDP resignations, perhaps they also have opinions as to which women may be presenting themselves as candidates.
Is the news this week of a possible addition of five new women NDP MLAs of no import!?
G West
3 years ago
I'm sorry
Now YOU'RE talking about 'diversion'?
That really is rich.
Let's copy your original offering again and then we can discuss diversion.
As I understand it the party has a rule that new nominees must be women when MLA men resign. Not knowing them intimately, I presume these five people are men and, even thought the next election is months away, I'm somewhat surprised not to have read any commentary on this here at The Tyee.
{realisticman)
I'd assert that the article, which is actually pretty confused and inconclusive - a point that has been adequately made above here by others - is about the Campbell Tax and its various justifications.
I assume you have nothing to offer on that subject. Either that or your support for the latest Campbell money-laundering exercise is unequivocal.
In any case, to suggest that whomever the opposition picks as its candidates has much credence for discussion when set against the puppet-like behavior of the time servers who sit on the Campbell side of the chamber is fairly obvious.
I don't find your submissions, or your justifications for them, at all persuasive.
Not that that is surprising.
Okay.
realisticman
3 years ago
He's sorry
In any case, to suggest that whomever the opposition picks as its candidates has much credence for discussion when set against the puppet-like behavior of the time servers who sit on the Campbell side of the chamber is fairly obvious.
So there we have it. No matter which women the NDP chose to represent us, they don't deserve much discussion; according to GWest.
G West
3 years ago
Another more or less complete
Another misinterpretation of what I wrote and a continued effort to disavow your own words.
Talk about diversionary.
If you don't want women as political representatives in the province, I suggest you simply come out and say so.
And you might want to check your OED for another definition of the use of the word 'sorry' while you're at it.
realisticman
3 years ago
Backtracking Spin.
I think that Carole Taylor would be an excellent choice for Premier. She's a woman, isn't she? Claire Trevena MLA does some very good work. Suzanne Anton and Kim Capri work hard on the Vancouver Council and should be applauded. Is it just discussing the NDP women that is taboo?
G West
3 years ago
Once again
Your inclination to ignore your own words and their implications is profound.
If Carole Taylor's record as finance minister is any example, why would you want her as premier?
On the other hand, it's her lack of knowledge of the management of her own ministry and her willingness to be a Campbell puppet that is most problematic about her record - of course that has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.
I have no objections to women candidates - in fact, I think if a woman Premier were to succeed Gordon Campbell and bring an end to the autocratic and selfish rule of big money and small brains in this province I would welcome her cabinet and her caucus even if it were composed entirely of women.
Men have made a bad enough mess of things - perhaps it's time for an even bigger change than just dumping the current undemocratic dictator.
So by all means, let's discuss women - I think it's well past their turn.
As for Susan Anton, her loyalty to the current mayor and a number of the other things I've heard her say make me wonder why you'd pick her as an exemplar. She seems a more or less decent example of a competent member of parks board who unsuccessfully challenged the Peter Principle when she aspired to council.
DPL
3 years ago
An old expresion says" Women
An old expresion says" Women hold up half the sky" women have sometimes broken the glass ceiling and of course women make up more than half of the population. BUT a lot of women in this country who have gone into politics seemed judged by what clothes they wear or who they might be married to, rather than their preformance as elected officials. I have a woman as my MLA, she is the leader of the official opposition. I did not vote for her to be leader and I sure don't like some of the things she has done. Flipping on pay raises, ALR land to name a couple of things. But she like WAC Bennet used to do, stopes for a second sober thought and even if some folks don't like it, including me, she says she changed her mind. Many women it seems don't want to take the time, or can't take the time to run to get elected for most parties. How many men politicians are willing to stay home and look after the kids. It appears to me that some very sharp women don't really enjoy trying to belittle the folks on the other side of the house. I don't figure a party should place themselves in a position that they must find a woman to run when a male member, elected person decides not to run to hold his seat. Some women have made a name for them selves as tough politicians but does one party in BC have neough strong women willing to go for a seat in the house, each time a male politicina for one reason or another leaves.. I don't know any of the NDP members leaving nor do I know any of the Liberal ones leaving. Their decision is up to them. Some work hard for the folks in their ridings but some seem there by some accident and just ride it out. In my view most women woudn't go the route of just hanging around for the paychecks and the perks. Lord knows we have enough male politicians who seem eager to just sit there, which sure lowers the image of elected folk. Are we back on subject now? Heck no, we started on NDP carbon Tax policy, wandered through pay raises, womens issues and not quite back to the origional thread.
realisticman
3 years ago
DPL
You bring forward some important observations. The obligations, in all issues you mention, are restricting.
One cannot help but wonder if the carbon Tax policies, on either side, had any bearing on the resignations.
RickW
3 years ago
R/Man
It is a rare thing to discuss other candidates put forward. Why single out women for this scrutiny?
Budd Campbell
3 years ago
ANTON AND CAPRI
Suzanne Anton and Kim Capri work hard on the Vancouver Council and should be applauded. Is it just discussing the NDP women that is taboo?
Anton and Capri are jokes. I have seen the Vancouver Council on TV and their performance is ridiculous.
I realize, however, that this doesn't disqualify them. After all, they're no larger a joke that Heather Deal, and a muhc smaller joke that David Cadman, the ultimate local yokel politician.
realisticman
3 years ago
Meanwhile, back east
The Canadian Press
MONTREAL -- The NDP's solution for Montreal's aging public transit system is this: take money from polluters and invest it in solutions.
Jack Layton announced the NDP's plans for Montreal's public transit system on a campaign stop on in the city Sunday. By-elections are taking place in Montreal's Westmount-Ville-Marie riding.
The leader of the NDP promised $591 million in investments over four years for Montreal's public transit.
The money would come from the pockets of polluters by taking one cent from the taxes on each litre of gas sold and also using the eventual carbon trading market.
He said his plans would increase access to public transit without increasing cost.
Numbers released by the NDP say their investments would translate to 1,400 new buses or 267 new metro wagons for Montreal.
G West
3 years ago
Sounds sensible to me
A Gas tax targeted to make change...not just launder the same money and spew it back to Campbell's friends.
What I can't get is why normally intelligent people can't understand why the Campbell Tax is such an oversold and useless scam.
The majority of British Columbians 'get' it; what's wrong with the bought and paid for so-called enviros who don't?
As for Campbell's supporters - why would anyone be surprised they've been duped again?
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
realisticman
And so would most BC'ers. She's likely BC's most popular politician.
But I place all of my bets on Gordo's replacement post-2010 on Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts!
Very astute, very likeable and has brought people on-board her Surrey First civic party such as veteran centre-left councillor Judy Villenueve.
Never thought Watts would be able to do that.
G West
3 years ago
Carole Taylor
Hadn't even read the regulations to the Campbell Tax prior to signing them luke.
Great 'hands on' leadership.
As a finance minister she was as maleable to Gordon Campbell's autocratic rule as she needed to be - don't trouble her with any questions - she hasn't got a clue.
But when the Bureau of Public Affairs needed to hire a spy to provide daily reports to the executive council from the Basi/Virk court hearings Carole stepped right up and provided a salary for Stuart Chase.
Nice!
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Carole Who????
Prolly got your Caroles mixed up.
Carole James...
But I do agree and probably those leaving her caucus (Robertson, Cubberley, Sather, Chudnovsky, etc al) about that Carole James statement.
Perhaps political pundit Alex Tsakumis recent musings can clarify that better:
Her leadership qualities are more suited to running a lemonade stand--on a good day.
Almost every issue the Opposition has touched since 2005 has been splendidly mishandled.
HawkEyes
3 years ago
Why…play?
That’s like following a carrot on a stick
…or being an accessory after the fact.
Why play when real numbers wait?
How about pinning the unexplained drop in BC emissions to the creation of real poverty in this province?
Why is diesel, traditionally half the price of gasoline, always double that now?
How many big polluters contribute zero to the Carbon Tax?
How long are they going to operate with business-as-usual emissions while waiting for a hazy cap and trade?
Why was the tax first, long before the cap and trade?
Where is the 2% tax cut, I mean return?
How many years was it until this government started to play “green”?
So many numbers…
If you are going to play with numbers based on a lot of assumptions,
play with null and void based on incompetence numbers…
G West
3 years ago
Nope
I got the right Carole luke, Carole Taylor.
You need to do a little more research:
This is from Hansard, Monday May 14, 2007:
J. Kwan: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister of Finance aware of this and has she approved having the public affairs bureau staff at the Basi-Virk court case?
Hon. C. Taylor: I am aware of it as of today. I was told of the situation. The public affairs bureau has informed me that the Ministry of the Attorney General made a request that instead of having all of their communication people in Victoria, they would have someone who was in Vancouver and would be able to monitor the major trials as they went forward. ...
Great hands on management, ain't it?
Now maybe you won't question the fact she was equally ignorant about the content of the Regulation to the Campbell Tax before she signed it.
Carole Taylor is the perfect definition of an attractive airhead stuck out front to keep the smile quotient high.
record
3 years ago
Carbon Tax Follies
It is amazing that anyone serious about repairing the environment can waste time supporting this tax scam. Trying to reduce GHGs through taxation and price increases is almost as silly as trying to reduce them through prayer.
The only sure way to quickly bring down GHG output with some certainty that targets will be met is to limit the supply of GHG causing agents available for consumption.
Rather than taxing fuel the government should be setting limits on how much can be sold and where in any given time period, and reduce production at the mines and wells.
Instead of wasting time on carbon tax fantasies, economists and politicians should be working on how to fairly manage a society with far less energy use and mineral production as well as overall consumption.
Worth a read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange
ME2
3 years ago
Central fallacy in CO2 debate
The central fallacy in this CO2 debate - from both Left and Right perspectives - is thinking that we can reduce our use of hydrocarbons for fuels simply through taxation, regulation, or adding to the cost of them. Sure, we CAN stabilise usage, for a time, through conservation efforts, but that is only a temporary, stop-gap solution.
Regardless of one's liking for them, or whether or not they pollute, hydrocarbons represent cheap, efficient energy. They mean life-support for nations, in the same sense as we humans need oxygen.
No country can survive competitively today with less use of, or with more expensive hydrocarbon fuels. Nor is it likely that any elected gov't would survive the resultant collapse in living standards.
The ONLY practical alternative open to us then, is switching to alternate sources of energy such as solar, wind, tidal, etc.
Private investors are for the most part uninterested in the long-range payback timeframes investment in these technologies involves, nor do they relish the likelihood of hydrocarbon prices falling once alternate energy sources become competitive.
Clearly this makes a case for government investment, where the good of the National / Provincial interest so obviously overrides ideological concerns for "The Market". A secondary argument for Gov't investment / control of large scale alternate power is that if it falls into corporate control, collusion between them and Big Oil etc is certain to happen.
John Meech
3 years ago
The Carbon Tax
I applaud the visionary approach that Premier Campbell has shown in putting forward a 33% reduction target for 2020 from 2008 emissions and an 80% reduction target by 2050. Regardless of whether or not one accepts the truth of global warming being related to the release of greenhouse gases by mankind, it is imperative that the world needs to move away from fossil fuels. We are running out of these resources and the majority of the reserves are controlled by countries that support terrorism.
That said, what is missing from the BC Carbon Reduction (Energy) Plan is a recognition of the best technologies to use to get off fossil fuels and the overall expected costs to still meet our energy needs.
One type of alternate energy is not being looked at seriously - geothermal energy. Low-temperature extraction of geothermal energy can result in a cheaper overall cost of heating buildings and homes. High-temperature geothermal resources exist in the province at a size that could produce electricity at the same level as our current hydro-system.
The vision to meet our Kyoto obligations through the use of geothermal energy is equivalent to the need to create the hydro-power system in the 1960s to meet our obligations under the Columbia River Treaty. That decision provided us with significant over-supply of electricity (which we sold to our neighbours) for the past 40 years. Today we have the cheapest and cleanest power system in the world of equivalent size. A similar "gift" can be given to our descendants in the form of geothermal energy systems - B.C. second abundant clean and green energy. In many cases by replacing fossil fuels with geothermal energy, the long term costs of energy will come down, not increase. It is an investment that is worth making at this juncture. Our children's children will reap the rewards of our investment today in this energy resource.
ME2
3 years ago
John Meech
I agree 100% with you that investment in low and high temperature geothermal heat and power will reap huge future benefits just as Bennet's dams have done.
However, as I noted above, investment shouid be public just like Bennet's dams, with profits and control vested in government or local communities. If we fail to do that, we might just as well forget it all and buy energy wherever we can, since local entrepreneurs will skin us just as surely as will outsiders.