Climate change: The only certainty is uncertainty
Stephane Dion seems to be basing his economic policy on the so-called irrefutable science of man-made climate change. While I totally agree with his concerns about pollution and the inherent need to clean up the environment for the health and safety of Canadians, I have a difficult time buying this line:
…Finally, we need to play a bigger role in the international efforts to solve the climate-change crisis. We need to participate in the setting of international goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and international rules to put a price on the cost of inaction. We cannot ignore the science of climate change simply because we don’t like what it forecasts . We need to work together to bring together the environment, the economy and social justice so we can lead the way toward a sustainable future…
Well, there are many scientific forecasts which seem to challenge Monsieur Dion’s unwavering belief system on climate change. Just today we have relevant editorials by Lorrie Goldstein and David Warren , and a piece here questioning NASA’s model.
So the fact is that the science is not clear. There are still many questions and obviously many mitigating factors that can affect trends and changes in the temperature of the earth. And as Fred points out, very little MSM coverage is given to events that appear to contradict the prevalent climate- change theories. One would almost suspect that it is a conspiracy of some kind. But hopefully the light of healthy skepticism will start to peek through the cracks of the cover-up.
So if Stephane Dion wants to follow Australia’s example and try to take advantage of the gullible, that’s his choice.
But don’t pretend that it is such a noble cause, when in fact it’s just an excuse for another burgeoning, money-sucking bureaucracy that will have the net effect of driving up the costs of goods that Canadians wish to purchase - including gas, and every commodity that relies on gas for transportation.
* * * *
Update: CBC’s At Issue addressed the issue of gas prices and politics this week.
Also worth watching is Rex Murphy’s take on ‘The End of the Ethanol Dream’ .
I can’t believe I just linked to CBC twice in one post!
The Maple Three - New Liberal Slogan: "Heating bills from hell are on the way. " (One of my favourite Liblogs)
May 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Carbon tax with the promise of income tax reductions to make it a neutral tax.
We will pay much more in carbon tax than we will receive in income tax reductions.
This tax will not be neutral to taxpayers, it will be neutral to government coffers.
Effects
Drive the cost of living up so high as to require increased social program funds. Social assistance, EI, Seniors benefits, don’t let them kid you, the social program costs, and the cost to administer the program, will be paid out long before you get a break on your income tax.
Therefore, to be a truly neutralized tax, that tax rate would have to pay for the shared cost of
1. the income tax reductions
2. the programs that support the ‘newly or soon to be’ unemployed due to the jobs killed by the tax
3. the need for assistance for those who do not pay income tax
3. the cost to administer all of the above
You are looking at a HUGE carbon tax, with the neuralizing funds spread out across about 30 government departments.
Libs love their big governments, big taxes and spending our money by the billions.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Well said, Wilson. BTW, Lorrie Goldstein exposed many of the Carbon Tax myths in an earlier column, which I covered here.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“When I was environment minister and listed greenhouse gases as toxic substances under Canada’s Environmental Protection Act, … They [Conservatives] even said, “Carbon dioxide is in babies’ breath – how can you call babies’ breath toxic?” They just don’t get it.”
Actually, the Liberals listed carbon dioxide as a toxic substance under the EPA.
But anyway, here’s the logic that professor Dion can’t seem to follow …
1. All Greenhouse Gases are toxic (Dion’s EPA says so)
2. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas (thus CO2 is toxic)
3. Babies’ breath contains carbon dioxide (obvious)
4. Therefore Babies’ breath (which contains CO2) is toxic.
Maybe if Dion drew some Venn diagrams of sets and subsets, that would help him.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Dion wants to tax what we breathe out, watch out - next he’ll want to tax what we breathe in. An oxygen tax - that has a nice ring to it! I can’t believe people are willing to accept this craziness! Dion and the greenies won’t be happy until there is no middle class left, and we’re all poor, and have to rely on government handouts. Dion and the Liberals are SCARY and have a hidden agenda. I also think they’re mean spririted and angry.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Who needs a carbon tax when world markets are set to do it better than Dion?
CIBC: Gas Prices to Spike
John Morrissy, Canwest News Service, Global News
April 24, 2008
Prepare for prices at the pump of $2.25 a litre by 2012 and crude oil at $225 US a barrel as scant supply growth delivers us into the “age of scarcity,” says CIBC World Markets chief economist Jeff Rubin. “Our latest review of probable supply suggests oil production will hardly grow at all, with average daily production between now and 2012 rising by barely more than a million barrels
per day. “Despite the recent record jump in oil prices, the outlook suggests oil prices will continue to rise steadily over the next five years, almost doubling from current levels,” Rubin said
May 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Carbon tax…what a farce…just ANOTHER way for the government to get their hands on our money.
You will notice the Canadian MSM did not report on the latest disclosure by the US Senate Committee On Enviromental & Public Works…no GW for 20 years! I guess this report conflicts with their agenda. This report is on Kate`s blog if anybody wants to read it.
If you want to see real pollution take a look at the City of Victoria…they are dumping millions of gallons of raw sewage into the Pacific ocean ever day! But this is OK? I guess somebody has to feed the crabs!
May 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The potential political attacks on Dion here are numerous. Here’s one that I like …
Mr. Dion, during the leadership race, you campaigned against a carbon tax, while Mr. Ignatieff campaigned for a carbon tax. What has changed between then and now that brings you around to Mr. Ignatieff’s point of view ?
There must be lots of clips from the leadership debates, where Dion makes his case against a carbon tax, which can now be pieced together for an election ad.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“The potential political attacks on Dion here are numerous.”
Those who have been pushing biofuels as one of the solutions to the so-called global warming/climate change crisis should be reminded of the demands they made prior to their awakening to the latest crisis, the food crisis.
Here’s another one you can add to the list re: Liberals’ positions.
From Hansard, Wednesday, January 30, 2008:
Government Orders - Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
“Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-33 sets out to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in an important way. ….
Let us talk about Bill C-33 and what it actually will do if the government is going to follow through, as the environment minister and the agriculture minister have both said, with a 5% national ethanol mandate by 2010.
First, the official opposition has been calling for a 10% ethanol position since last January when the Leader of the Opposition challenged the government in a speech to Saskatchewan farmers in Regina to increase to 10% what had already been put forward in our election documentation of 2006 calling for a 5% ethanol content.
It is important for Canadians to know that all car manuals, in every car sold in Canada today, tells car owners that today they can in fact use a 10% ethanol content in their engines as they run their cars.
We know that if we had a 10% mandate in Canada as opposed to the weaker 5% put forward by the government, it would double the amount required to some four billion litres a year, a figure already surpassed in terms of those plants that are presently operating, under construction and being financed. When the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary speak about supporting our farming community, one has to ask the question, why is the government pursuing such an unambitious target of 5%? …”
May 4th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
‘..What has changed between then and now.. (Dion against before he was for a carbon tax)
I still think he’s made a deal with Ms Lizzy, no carbon tax, no unite the left.
All is too quiet from Lizzy, and not going to the polls and taking this amount of flack, they would have to do something big to be forgiven; such as uniting the Red/Green parties (with duct tape)
May 12th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Climate change: The only certainty is uncertainty, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.