Matt and Sandy’s story is really chugging along. I originally mentioned it at the end of this post in an update. It seems that a private company called Green Shift is quite perturbed that the Liberal party have used their trademarked name for the launch of the Tax shift plan.
Just a nice little company doing the right thing, and then along comes the big, bad Liberal party and starts messing with them. Matt tells us the clients are concerned that they are affiliated with the LPC, and this is starting to affect Green Shift’s bottom line.
Why is the Liberal party giving this company the shaft? Will Green Shift receive an apology? Will the Liberals change the name of their plan?
Stay tuned.
* * * *
Update: MSM is on it!
CTV – Firm takes action against Liberal ‘Green Shift’ brand.
National Post – ‘Green shift name taken’, enviro group tells Liberals.
Globe – Liberals Green Shift brand hits a snag.
This story is really staring to look bad for the Liberals. It’s clear from the MSM links that the Liberals knew about this conflict and just ignored it anyway. Ms. Wright feels that this is a David vs. Goliath situation. The Liberals really are the bullies here.
Is this the party you want running the country? Someone who would step all over a great private company that was just trying to do the right thing. Jennifer Wright has been working hard to develop a good reputation only to have it trod upon by some arrogant politicians.
I always thought that Stephane Dion valued green companies and women. But when push comes to shove, the party’s own interests seem to get priority.
Greg Weston – Dion’s costly shift.
[...] Joanne at Blue Like You has a post now as [...]
[...] Shift” a trademark! Updatesrabbit on “Green Shift” a trademark! UpdatesBlue Like You » Blog Archive » So who’s the bully now? on “Green Shift” a trademark! UpdatesSandy on “Green Shift” a trademark! [...]
there’s absolutely no evidence available to support the claim that the green shift is a trademark infringement.
considering that all the conservative voices crying out in defense of this company are climate change deniers, including yourself, it’s doubtful green shift would ever get any of your business anyway.
you don’t care about the well-being of this business. at least be honest about your motives.
And the spin begins, now we just need gayle to make an appearance.
What I find ironic is that the Green Shift does not want to be associated with the LPC in any form.
The lady from Green Shift said that on t.v. and I’m sure it was on MDL. Wish I had the tape of last Weds. or Thurs, which ever day Dion had his big speech. She said they had never been with the Liberals but worked closely with the NDP.
Here’s a good one..
Over at CTV, there’s an article titled, “Carbon tax has potential to ‘shift’ voters: poll”
The 3rd paragraph says:
“But once the policy was explained to respondents, the Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey found, close to half – 47 per cent – liked the idea, while 39 per cent said they were opposed.”
I’d love to hear the ‘explanation’ they came up with to convince that 47% to agree.
LOL
For Jeffy:
A trademark or trade mark (represented by the symbol ™) or mark is a distinctive sign or indicator of some kind which is used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to identify uniquely the source of its products and/or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. A trademark is a type of intellectual property, and typically a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements. There is also a range of non-conventional trademarks comprising marks which do not fall into these standard categories.
The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark.
What I find ironic is that the Green Shift does not want to be associated with the LPC in any form.
i spoke with 2 different people at green shift for about 15 minutes this afternoon.
they claim to be completely apolitical when it comes to their business.
for you to suggest that they wish to distance themselves from the LPoC because of green policy or otherwise is, once again, dishonest.
i led a spokesperson from green shift to kate mcmillan’s blog. i pointed out the post that encourages her readers to consume more than usual during earth hour.
i also pointed out that the blogger’s covering this story from the blogging tories are climate change deniers. hardly the target for green products or services.
with so many conservative bloggers firmly on the side of the deniers, why not admit that you not only hope for dion’s plan to fail but also that any green business fail also?
why not admit that you don’t care about the folks at green shift and only about shifting attention away from the utter failure of the conservative govt on both economic and environmental issues?
once again, why not be honest?
as for paulsstuff, there is no resemblance at all between the green shift trademark ( if it exists ) and what the LPoC has created.
[...] on “Green Shift” a trademark!rabbit on “Green Shift” a trademark!Blue Like You » Blog Archive » So who’s the bully now? on “Green Shift” a trademark!Sandy on “Green Shift” a trademark!Northern [...]
no trademark on “the green shift” only on “green shift”. not the same is it?
no trade-mark
so this ends up being rather dishonest doesn’t it?
oops. not even a trademark on green shift. merely an application. utterly dishonest.
You might want to go over to RT’s site, where this entire thing has been debunked now.
I think you owe Dion an apology.
“I’d love to hear the ‘explanation’ they came up with to convince that 47% to agree.”
No doubt Dion would too…
the silence is deafening.
“they claim to be completely apolitical when it comes to their business.”
And yet, as Ruth mentioned, they admit to working closely with the NDP.
“with so many conservative bloggers firmly on the side of the deniers, why not admit that you not only hope for dion’s plan to fail but also that any green business fail also?”
Link please. Where did I say that I hope that any green business fails? Who’s being dishonest?
Gayle, Jeff, the enquiring minds at the Globe & Mail are on the story now.
“Ms. Wright recalls being told by the senior Liberal aide: “I just want to let you know that you’re going to be getting a lot of hits on the website.”
Ms. Wright said she warned Ms. Telford the Liberals could expect a lawsuit if they went ahead and used the name.
“I said, more importantly, why would you do that to a nice, friendly, environmental organization?” Ms. Wright said.”
Couldn’t care less about whichever Green Shift we are talking about here, but as for climate deniers: prove the planet is over heating. You’ve got no proof, because the science is definitely NOT settled. Science is not a court case.
Lets face it, the Green movement is about control, not “saving the planet” because the planet is actually doing fine on it’s own, without any help from the likes of you Jeff Davidson or Gayle. You know nothing of science. You mouth green “talking points”, that is all. You could not debate science on your own, because you are ignorant of “real” science”. Mr Dion’s BIG PLAN is e all other Liberal plans: all talk, no action and usually involves a lot of other people’s money, not their own. They are cheap, mony-grubbing, skinflints. Freeloaders, just like their handmaidens the MSM and mouthpieces like you two. Tell me if this BIG PLAN will actually DO anything to “save the planet”. You can’t because you know that we can not control our climate outside of our own homes. Prove that we can and then I might sign on. Until then stay out of my pocket and out of taxpayers’ faces. Used car salesmen are better than you two at selling this junk science.
So jad – I take it you went over to RT’s to see what this is all about?
Oooo… this is lovely, Jad. Thank you so much for that link!!!
“OTTAWA — Stéphane Dion’s cross-country tour promoting his “green shift” hit a potentially embarrassing pothole Monday as a Toronto environmentalist took legal action over what she describes as “blatantly unethical” trademark infringement.
A firm already operating as Green Shift sent a cease and desist letter Monday afternoon to the Liberal Party and the company is considering whether to sue for damages.”
So Jeffy? That’s not some Conservative blogger talking, that’s the actual owner of the trademark who has issued the cease and desist order. Please enlighten us and then pop over to RT’s and tell them the Globe and Mail has debunked what he claims to have debunked. LOL
Since when are all Blogging Tories of the same mind? We are all very different people and think very differently as a result? Or, is that an indication of what Liblogs are like? Is it because they all think alike on all topics, that Jeff assumes conservatives do as well.
Well, we don’t.
And, since when are we all being labelled climate change deniers? Is that like being called a racist, for which there can be no response without being on the defensive?
I am very much an environmentalist and am trying very hard to reduce my energy consumption. See my updates on today’s topic here: http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2008/06/23/green-shift-trademark-updates/
Moreover, I have never ever written anything against climate change, other than all sides of the topic should be discussed in school science classes.
In fact, I very much approve of “green” companies. My brother works for an environmental research agency in Alberta for goodness sake.
There is absolutely no link between global warming orthodoxy and caring for ones earth and immediate environment and approving of a company such as “Green Shift.” I commend what they are doing.
To suggest otherwise is the true dishonesty here.
Paulsstuff — Thanks for that updated news. Appreciated.
Hey Jeffy. Perhaps you might want to forward this to the company or direct their attention to it. And it’s so sad to see Gayle happily encouraging this type of moronic behavior. From RT’s blog:
” I just called them and told them I got an email from the Conservative Party that advised me to call their number and ask them a question about their involvement with the Liberal Party.
It’s was the performance of a lifetime because I had to sound insensate and low class like a typical Conservative supporter.
Ti-Guy | 06.23.08 – 3:33 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
“Gayle Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
You might want to go over to RT’s site, where this entire thing has been debunked now.”
Hey Gayle, while were at it, come back and give us the update RT posted at his site.
What’s that saying again Gayle?
SNORT!!
“jeff davidson Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
the silence is deafening.”
Ya’all come back now Jeffy.
Paul, I’m still in shock from your comment at 9:16.
I mean, I knew the guy was low, but…
The wheels are falling off the green shaft wagon.
PS:I just went and read the comment at RT’s by TG that Paul posted, wtf. Do these liberals have any ethics?
That is disturbing..
Here is the G&M link:
Well, time to let you all in on a little secret. Aside from Joanne few know that I have close family members working for the Conservative Party of Canada. I get a chuckle out of some of Gayle’s rants where she thinks, she believes, she guesses, etc.
Jeff Davidson is the biggest joke I’ve seen on the blogs posting. Here is a guy who makes idiotic comments completely lacking in fact, and then runs and hides rather than admit his mistake. At least RT admits when he is wrong. Sadly Rt has allowed his blog to be denigrated by the likes of ti-guy. He is actually a pretty smart guy who used to be fun to debate with.
A good blog, partisan or not, should be willing to point out the good and the Bad of your preferred parties leader. Joanne is a good example of that type of blog. Jason Cherniak, well, NOT!!!
As for Ti-Guy’s assinine comment, I have brought it to the attention(link to RT’s blog), of the Conservative Party as well as the company who feels their trademark has been infringed upon.Needless to say the rep for the company is not to impressed with childish calls when they are trying to run a business.
In the meantime, c’mon on back Gayle and Jeff, and give us your insight as to how you debunked the trademark story.
p.s. Internal party polling for all parties shows Conservatives in the high 30′s, Lib’s mid 20′s, NDP mid to high teens, and Green around 10. That in essence is the reason for the Liberal’s abstaining 43 times on confidence votes.
Paul – RT posted the name was not trademarked. As it turns out, it wasn’t.
The update refers to the G&M article, which does not allege it was trademarked.
That is all.
Um – TG was kidding. And it was funny too.
Oh, yeah. Real funny Gayle.
You guys are sick.
um paul…. what gayle said. funny to hear the fake concern from this lot.
After reading through some of the stories about this from the Post and CTV, I’m left shaking my head at the arrogance of the LPC. They advise this poor woman that she’ll be getting more hits???!!!
She asks them not to use the name. They pretty much thumb their noses at her and do it anyway???
Attention All Lemmings!!!
Please report to the nearest cliff.
Merry Christmas Steve!
Ah yes – I guess when the rats see their ship sinking they resort to all types of idiotic and childish tactics to try to stop the carnage. Too bad it isn’t working.
Now that’s funny.
What is sick about that?
You do know he did not actually make that call, right???
“You do know he did not actually make that call, right??”
Really Gayle – when he says he did it, why would you say he didn’t.
Sinking Ship, Gayle – Sinking Ship – one more Liberal farce that hits the iceberg.
“I always thought that Stephane Dion valued green companies and women.”
Are you kidding me? Now this is an example of sexism?
Come on.
Gayle, the LPC knew about this ahead of time. Jennifer Wright asked them to use another name. They ignored her.
Jennier Wright was screwed by the LPC. I can’t make it simpler than that.
Even if she were Joanne (and I am not conceding that), it has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman.
Speaking of disgusting, your claim that it reflects Dion’s attitudes towards women fits that bill.
AG – because he said he didn’t.
But it was kind of subtle, in a very funny way, so you probably missed it…
And your belief that this is somehow going to “sink” the liberal plan is, well, absolutely hilarious. Really, really funny.
Because Canadians are automatically going to reject the plan once they find out that there is a company that has the same name.
You are so desperate.
gayle,
are you suggesting that the optics of all of this are perfectly fine?
I have no idea how the optics will turn out. I suspect the LPC are speaking to this company, because, whether they have a legal hold over the name or not, they are clearly trying to make something out of this. I also suspect the two parties will resolve it.
As the CPC did the exact same thing (read the Globe article), I do not think much will come out of it.
However, my point is whether or not the optics are good has nothing to do with the merit of the plan, and AG’s comment implies she believes the plan will sink just because of this issue.
so you don’t think it ironic that the first causualty of dion’s plan is a small business envronmental group?
no, the plan will sink on its own merits- or lack thereof
the fact that either the LPC did not do their homework when crafting the brand or did do the homework and just didn’t care speaks to their integrity.
but I guess Ms Wright should be happy that the LPC gave her a courtesy call to let her know that they were going to use the name of her company, right?
Well, of course the fact they used a name that was already in use is exactly what the CPC did.
And yet, no howls of protest from anyone here over that…
I suspect the fact they put a disclaimer on their website demonstrates an awareness of the issue, but you do not have to acknowledge that in your desperate attempt to find something…anything to hit the LPC with.
God knows I have yet to hear any solid criticism of the actual plan from the BT sites.
“so you don’t think it ironic that the first causualty of dion’s plan is a small business envronmental group?”
When there is some evidence this was a casualty, I may join you in that opinion.
oh god, are we back to your fav form of debating…”well they did it too!!!”
doesn’t make it right on either count.
no, the disclaimer shows they knew that another entity had the name firms, and they did not care. So instead of being idiots, they look heartless.
There’s lots of legit criticism on the plan gayle. basically any point you’ve chosen to ignore is probably a legit one as you don’t have a witty comeback for it…
well gayle, how’s this:
when I went to find the carbon tax plan, I typed “www.greenshift.ca”
I was a bit confused, because i didn’t see any LPC logos, so I googled it and that’s when I found out about the company.
There is confusion. They are a legit enviro group who detests green washing (which in my mind is exactly what dion’s carbon tax is). It’s no wonder they do not want to be associated with the LPC.
But according to all the libloggers, she should be happy with all the hits and attention. Right.
“When there is some evidence this was a casualty, I may join you in that opinion.”
and until then? continue to make fun of this woman’s predicament with the rest of the libloggers?
“But according to all the libloggers, she should be happy with all the hits and attention. Right.
I never said that. I said I will wait and see how this plays out.
And I do not offer the fact the CPC did it too as a defence of the LPC, but rather as evidence of the hypocrisy I see from people like you.
“God knows I have yet to hear any solid criticism of the actual plan from the BT sites”
1. A huge jump in inflation.
2. Major losses in the manufacturing sector.
3. Major increase in the cost of electricity, home heating, gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel.
4. Huge cost to all levels of government, who foot the bill for heating and electricity for government run businesses, which result to increases in property taxes.
5. No figures of an accurate reduction of ghg emissions in the plan.
6. Re:#5. Plans projections in year 4 are based on Canada’s emissions today, meaning plan forecasts no decrease.
7. No explanation by Dion or the Liberal’s of who will be paying quite a bit more under this plan.
8. Of $15.5 billion in carbon-taxes gained, income tax cuts will = $9 billion, leaving $6.5 billion in new social spending. This means the federal government will be using revenues of $6.5 billion that it currently does not have. Which taxpayers will be footing that bill.
9. As enviro minister, Dion’s Project Green plan included intensity targets. When the Conservative plan used intensity targets, Dion proclaimed them bad policy.
10. As recently as six months ago Dion stated a carbon-tax would not work, and said cap-and-trade was the only effective way to deal with emissions. When the NDP put forth a plan using cap-and-trade, Dion decided a carbon tax was the best route. If Harper puts forth a plan using a carbon tax, will dion abandon the idea for something else?
11. Tarrifs on incoming goods from non-carbon tax countries. Consumers will end up paying this tax as it is passed along from suppliers and wholesalers.
12. If Dion wishes to stick to his ridiculous notion companies will not pass along increased taxes and tarrifs, and will lower their profit margin, the federal treasury will see a reduction. Companies making less money pay less taxes, no?
13. Eastern provinces, Nove Scotia in particular, rely on coal-produced electricity. With new forms of power years away from development, eastern provinces already struggling economically will be hit hard.
14. Gas is already at record high prices. In a few weeks the price of natural gas is set to dramtically rise, with experts saying the average Canadian will be paying $268 dollars a year more. This is before Dion slaps on a carbon tax. Combine that with the spike in hydro prices, and Dion’s so called rebates to seniors and low-income Canadian’s won’t even cover the cost of their energy increase, let alone the increase for almost every product, particularly food.
15. There is a long time saying, if you bought it a truck brought it. Under Dion’s plan in year two diesel will have a 7 cent a liter carbon tax added,ramping up after that. You think truck drivers can absorb that cost, on top of the crisis they face right now with rapidly rising fuel costs?
16. Dion refuses to acknowledge under the plan gasoline is forecast to rise 2.5 cents a litre, ending up at 10 cents a litre in trickled down cost in year four. That alone would cost a person using one 60 litre tank of gas a week $300+ per year in year four. That extra money alone will be removed from the economy, lowering sales, taxes generated from sales, taxes generated from income in manufacturing goods, less demand for manpower by companies who have sales declines, and EI costs to the government as more join the ranks of the unemployed.
Thses are all points made on various BT blogs Gayle. You want to have an honest straight forward debate, going point-counterpoint, I will be happy to oblige.
that’s the defense du jour, gayle. do you agree with it?
“And I do not offer the fact the CPC did it too as a defence of the LPC, but rather as evidence of the hypocrisy I see from people like you.”
funny, I don’t recall being hypocritical on this…but please, if you are able to find any case where I’ve said otherwise on this, let me know
paul,
good luck…she’ll ignore your points because she’ll have no response to them and instead she’ll attack you.
Gayle’s MO
Also, she can’t debate it because…(from TT’s)
“As for what is good about the plan, I said from the start that I have not made my mind up about it – and I haven’t, because I said I wanted to hear from the experts first.”
that’s what she wrote after I asked her to tell me what she thinks is GOOD about the plan.
She’s read the plan, but can’t tell me what’s good about it, because she’s waiting for the experts to tell her how she should feel about the plan.
Paul – Can you tell me what sites you are taking these from?
I am interested in whether these are fact based criticisms that have been substantiated, or just wild predictions of doom and gloom.
I mean, anyone can say “but there will be inflation”. It is the methodology they use to reach that conclusion that interests me.
Yes, tori – shocking that, isn’t it.
I could go off all half cocked without any expertise to back up my theories, or I could wait for people who have expertise in this area to weigh in.
You know which I choose…and I know which you choose.
“funny, I don’t recall being hypocritical on this…but please, if you are able to find any case where I’ve said otherwise on this, let me know…”
I understand you have this real issue with context, but at least try Tori.
People here, including you, are bashing the LPC for using a name already used by another company.
They are not bashing the CPC for doing the same thing.
I am not sure what that means in your world, but in my world that sounds like hypocrisy.
I wasn’t bashing the CPC for doing the same thing?
link please
Other than that, you have just called me a liar.
Just scroll up my friend. It is not that hard.
“Well, of course the fact they used a name that was already in use is exactly what the CPC did.
And yet, no howls of protest from anyone here over that…”
Unless you can direct me to a “howl of protest” coming from you.
“I could go off all half cocked without any expertise to back up my theories, or I could wait for people who have expertise in this area to weigh in.”
and yet you come over the BT’s and essentially demand people discuss the plan.
How do you propose you hold up your end of the discussion if you refuse to make a comment on the plan? Unless your only point here is to personally attack people
yup not that hard…
me, earlier…”doesn’t make it right on either count.”
do you really want to go there, gayle. I suspect not.
also, I could really care less what semantic games the LPC play with what is essentially a wealth distribution sheme, not unlike Kyoto. It’s not a “green shift”, it’s a carbon TAX.
My concern is for Jennifer Wright and her company.
My concern is for Jennifer Wright and her company.
Mine too. That was the point of the post.
Gayle … spun like cotton candy on a paper stick!
99% Air!
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2008/06/24/5968491-sun.php
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/447138
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080623.wrcsuite23/BNStory/Business/home
http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2890
“A carbon tax is less effective than a carbon market at reducing emissions. Some of my opponents for the Liberal leadership have suggested that a carbon tax would be the most effective measure to curb climate pollution. This is simply bad policy, for the following reasons: 1. A carbon tax is almost always implemented as a direct tax on fossil fuels. Given the current price of these fuels, however, it is difficult to argue that a further price signal will dampen consumption or shift demand. 2. A carbon tax is a flat tax — it costs each polluter a fixed amount per tonne of emissions. Such a tax will not inflate with a bull market or recede in times of difficulty. In the energy market, in particular, soaring prices make anything but a prohibitively high tax a mere nuisance for large producers. 3. Finally, and most significantly, valuing reductions in emissions equally across all sectors and industries eliminates the potential benefits to be had by maximizing reductions where the cost is lowest. In a carbon market, those areas that produce the least expensive real reductions will experience the highest level of interest and investment, maximizing the level of reductions per dollar spent.
“It is “bad policy,” Dion noted in his Liberal leadership environmental platform. It would do nothing to discourage consumption and would penalize all emission generators equally without taking into account the technological cost of fixing their problem. (quoted in Calgary Herald, February 21, 2008)”
I see that Andrew Telegdi will be taking calls tomorrow on the Jeff Allen show. Someone should ask him how they chose the name of the plan.
no, Ms. Wright’s company is not being harmed…
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Cartoon/2008/06/24/5968516.html
Today, the official representative of truckers throughout Eastern Canada leveled a dire warning about the impact of a carbon tax on families in his region:
“Transportation costs would rise with increased fuel costs as a result of carbon taxes, prices of consumer goods and food would rise, inflation would then in turn rise.
The average consumer would see this rise in the form of paying $8 for a head of lettuce at your local grocery store. The proposed personal tax cuts would be offset by the dramatic increase in costs for food, clothing and medicine, for example, all of which we import and arrive here by truck.”
- Peter A. Nelson, Executive Director, Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association (Times & Transcript (Moncton), June 6, 2008.)
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/19/half-shift/
“me, earlier…”doesn’t make it right on either count.””
My mistake – sounds like a “howl of protest” to me…
Paul – were those links to media reviews in lieu of links to the BT sites I asked for?
interesting that you choose to insult instead of discussing the points that paul has given u…
Paul – were those links to media reviews in lieu of links to the BT sites I asked for?
holy crap, lady…you talk as if we work for you.
you know what? perhaps YOU bring something to the table before demanding it of others…
Gee Gayle. As far as I know, Greg Weston is not a BT blogger. And he is using government figures.
Another of the links provides input from three noted economists, And Bill Graham. Did I miss the news about Bill Graham being a part of the BT?
I’m also pretty sure the head of the truckers association is not a BT blogger as well.
Now that I think of it, those CEO and business leaders I linked to are not part of the BT bloggers either.
You wanna debate or what?
Give me a pro to Dion’s plan and lets see if I can counter.
By the way Gayle, the Liberal’s calculator is broken. My son is 15. By year 4 he will be 19. Therefore my reduction amount is screwed(pun intended).
paul,
I made the point yesterday, only to read about it today…about the dismal 1% reduction for businesses…
Dion claims this will make canada competitive. I think businesses will find it incredibly hard to exist and they will move their operations elsewhere.
paul – perhaps you forget the comment I was responding to. Here it is:
“I suspect the fact they put a disclaimer on their website demonstrates an awareness of the issue, but you do not have to acknowledge that in your desperate attempt to find something…anything to hit the LPC with.
God knows I have yet to hear any solid criticism of the actual plan from the BT sites.”
You responded with quotes. I asked for the sites and you respond with media links, which, Weston aside (and I am pretty sure you knew I was not including the media in my comment) are not BT sites.
I am aware there will be criticism of this plan – criticism from people who know what they are talking about.
The point I was making, however, is that there are “howls of protest” about the use of this name, but little by way of substantive commentary on the plan.
I intend to read a lot of expert commentary on the plan before I decide if I think it will work or not. Commentary from BOTH sides of the issue. I recommend you do the same.
Cheers
“interesting that you choose to insult instead of discussing the points that paul has given u…”
I have no idea what you are talking about, but then you see insult whenever someone does not agree with you…
no, I see insult whenever you open your mouth…
I figured that out Tori.
That is why I find your outrage and hurt feelings so very amusing. Talk about making something out of nothing…
Sheesh – I see Gayle is over here now with her obtuse demands for links and comments on “THE PLAN”.
“AG’s comment implies she believes the plan will sink just because of this issue.”
And just to show you how you really do not understand what you read – I in no way implied the plan would sink because of this issue (although I hope it does); I was implying that this is just ANOTHER of the Libs foul ups that is coming back to bite them in the A$$!!!!
And I couldn’t be happier.
“I was implying that this is just ANOTHER of the Libs foul ups that is coming back to bite them in the A$$!!!!
And I couldn’t be happier.”
Just so you know, this part of your opinion goes without saying. You can just assume I know that is what you think.
“Sheesh – I see Gayle is over here now with her obtuse demands for links and comments on “THE PLAN”. ”
pretty much, AG.
but don’t bother asking her what she thinks of the plan…she’s waiting for the experts to tell her what to think…
“but don’t bother asking her what she thinks of the plan…she’s waiting for the experts to tell her what to think…”
Apparently you are not “allowed” to ask her any questions or ask her for her thoughts – she will refuse to answer and make more obtuse demands for links and tell everyone how no one has answered her on her terms!
And then she will make some silly statement like ..
“Just so you know, this part of your opinion goes without saying. You can just assume I know that is what you think.”
which shows me that Gayle just likes to have the last word on any blog – check it out sometime. She will always be the last one to comment. There is a name for that personality affliction – I think it is called arrogance??
“but don’t bother asking her what she thinks of the plan…she’s waiting for the experts to tell her what to think…”
Of course that is not what I said, but then you are never that concerned about truth and accuracy are you.
“which shows me that Gayle just likes to have the last word on any blog”
I just know you people stop when you realize you simply cannot counter my points.
It is easier for you to run away than it is for you to concede the point.
This has been an interesting thread. Thank you Paul for all the helpful links. If I ever use any of them I will give you credit. Thanks also to Tori and Alberta Girl for your patience.
But, this comment is directed to Gayle, who has been complaining that no BT’s are writing anything against Dion’s plan. As though somehow that meant his plan must be a good one. Faulty logic.
While I can’t speak for Joanne or any other BT’s, I would like to advise that it is not my job to write about the Liberals EVER. Good or bad. Postive or negative. EVER.
Why? Because I want to spend my time on the party I support and that means writing about what the Harper government has accomplished.
You see, the Harper government has many green-oriented plans in place. Just go to the Government of Canada and click on the Department of the Environment. All the links are there.
Since the Conservatives are the government, they have a number of departments and can’t write a single plan. In fact, what they are planning to do for the environment and climate change would be far too long to fit into a 48 page report — like the Dion Green Shift (trademarked Green Shift Inc.) Plan
But soon I do plan to write about what the Harper government’s plans are for the greening of the country — with perhaps some comparisons to the Dion plan, pro or con.
But, write only about Dion? As I said above NOT EVER.
Oh Sandy – you have completely missed the point.
I do not care if BT’s write about the plan.
I was simply pointing out that a great deal of energy has been spent on two subjects – Dion’s apparent “reading” of an answer from his plan on TV, and this name thing. It is amusing to me that so many people here and at DBT’s think these two topics are of such great import, and yet few of them are in a position to comment on the actual plan.
Many of those who do make claims that are not substantiated when you actually read the plan.
So, by all means, write about what you want. It still amuses me how so many people here want to avoid addressing the actual content of the plan though.
“So, by all means, write about what you want. It still amuses me how so many people here want to avoid addressing the actual content of the plan though.”
Well Gayle, pick any of the 16 points i made above,or pick something else from the plan of your own choosing. I’ve read it front to back a few times. Let’s debate.
Job losses, inflation, damaged economy, little reduction of emissions, wealth redistribution scheme.
Pick whatever your little heart desires.
“So, by all means, write about what you want. It still amuses me how so many people here want to avoid addressing the actual content of the plan though.”
Gayle, sweetie – try to understand this – the actual content of the plan is airy fairy, pie in the sky this is what we will do if we ever get elected again “promises” (with fingers crossed behind their backs).
The Tories are ACTUALLY doing something – ( Sandy has outlined it all on her blog) – try to get that through your thick skull. Maybe no one will “address” the content because it is not worth the paper it is written on. After all, the Libs have put out scads of “plans” in the past and then when they get into power – poof – never to be seen again.
So why should we address the content when the government that we support actually has addressed the concerns and the Liberals have supported that plan!
Well AG, I’m certainly willing to debate the content of the plan whenever Gayle is ready.
Oh, actually Gayle, I haven’t missed the point at all. What I have noticed is you like attention and you get that by continually changing the subject.
Paul has provided you with all the negative points you could ever want and yet you avoid his challenge.
Read Weston in today’s National Post. If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will.
Oh, and I have decided not to write about the Dion plan because that is a game you Liberals love to play. Write about it and then every Liberal troll comes out of the woodwork to denounce everything but the subject at hand.
As you have just done with Pauls excellent points.
As Joanne says, who’s the bully now?
Oh Sandy – that was GREAT!!
Um Sandy – yes you have missed the point. But you can keep making them up if you want to do so.
Oh – I am sorry Paul. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying those points have been discussed elsewhere, not that you want to discuss them. Hence my confusion.
So, let’s start with #1. Can you tell me why you think the green plan will increase inflation? Bear in mind I am not an economist, but I will try to follow.
Thanks
OMG, this should be fun
I’ll brng the beer and popcorn
Yes tori – undoubtedly Paul has something of substance to say. It could be the first such discussion I have had…
until he makes points you can’t argue against and then you’ll go back to your normal way of doing things…attacking the messenger….
my popcorn needs more butter…
Sure Gayle.
#1. The most obvious point being applying a carbon tax increases the cost of virtually all goods. Goods will have a carbon-tax pplied in manufacturing, those manufacturers will also have increased costs due to the increase in hydro, heat, etc.
Here in Ajax where I live, town council already estimates an increase of over 1% inproperty taxes to make up for increased costs tothe municipality for heat, hydro, increased fuel costs,etc.
Another problem with Dion’s plan is the fact he wants to apply a tarrif to non-carbon tax countries. Aside from the fact that those tarrifs would violate international treaties in many cases, and the complexity involved in administering the cost, those tarrifs would in the end be passed onto us, the consumer.
Bcause of the already rapid rise in energy, inflation is already hedging hire. Slapping a carbon-tax would only compound the problem.
An increase in inflation will further hammer the economy, as workers look for bigger pay raises to keep up. In turn the interest rates we are charged on loans and mortages would also rise. Not to mention higher interest rates result in the government paying more in interest on the debt, resulting in less money for health care, infrastructure, etc.
Thanks Paul
As I said, I do not pretend to be an expert on this, and you will have to excuse me for this but I want to post a comment from Far and Wide from a poster calling himself Joseph, where he addresses these points. That said, I think your concern is valid, but I am not sure the predictions will be borne out. For example, here in Alberta heating and electricity costs already went through the roof when Klein deregulated them. That has not caused rampant inflation.
And I certainly think something has to be done about GHG emissions, and the longer we wait the higher the cost will be.
Anyway, here is what Joseph had to say:
“On the topic overall, one thing I have been pondering since Thursday is the total exaggeration of the impact of increased fuel prices to the economy as a whole. I want to be clear here, and I in know way advocate pushing this as a “political” strategy (too easy to smear, as we know they will), but I think people are missing the obvious current example when they toss the doomsday scenarios around. In reality (a domain most of us inhabit), if the economy were going to collapse from increased energy costs as the cons would imply, wouldn’t we have already experienced an absolute apocalypse by now! After all, fuel prices have risen over 60% in the past year and every economists says that, with some fluctuation, those prices are going to be around for the foreseeable future. That has made for tighter times, for certain. I’ve seen it, as I’m sure everyone else has as well. But there are no riots here in Vancouver (or Toronto or Halifax or Saskatoon to my knowledge), and the world seems to be rolling along more or less normal. And, as a silver lining, experts are now seeing stats showing changes in auto purchase decisions to more fuel efficient autos and decreases in auto travel in response to the higher gas prices. If that isn’t an argument that the MUCH MORE MODEST and clearly defined increase in the costs of energy proposed the green shift, coupled with tax benefits to offset some of those increases costs, can be absorbed into the economy with beneficial long-term results in energy efficiency, I don’t know what is. There will be impacts from the green shift, but the hellfire on earth scenario complete with stagflation, fire in the streets, is total bull. If it didn’t happen since last summer, it just isn’t in the cards. Nothing in the green shift compares to the “natural market” increase we’ve experienced in the past 12 months. The main difference, as I see it, is the windfall profits the energy companies have experienced would be instead partially redirected to the consumers who need it. If you own an oil company in Alberta, that might crimp your style mildly. But it’s not going to harm the man on the street in Calgary, or the woman with a child in Toronto, because they don’t benefit from those record profits today. Something to think about as the sketches of a world pivoting on the edge emerge in the coming weeks.”
“…until he makes points you can’t argue against and then you’ll go back to your normal way of doing things…attacking the messenger….”
You mean, like you just did?
Oh that’s right, your standard only applies to MY conduct.
What I have noticed is you like attention and you get that by continually changing the subject.
Yes, that would be Gayle, alright. Very observant, Sandy.
“Nothing in the green shift compares to the “natural market” increase we’ve experienced in the past 12 months. The main difference, as I see it, is the windfall profits the energy companies have experienced would be instead partially redirected to the consumers who need it. If you own an oil company in Alberta, that might crimp your style mildly. But it’s not going to harm the man on the street in Calgary, or the woman with a child in Toronto, because they don’t benefit from those record profits today. ”
Of course it’s going to affect the consumer. Whatever increases in carbon tax that the oil companies get are not going to be eaten by the companies- they’re going to pass the cost down to the consumer.
As great as it is that people are changing their car habits by driving less and not buying SUV’s- many still need to drive in order to survive. A huge % of our population does not live near transit (which will be interesting to see if they raise the cost when they get hit with the carbon tax, and pass that on to the consumer as well), and decades of building suburbia have only enabled the dependence of the car even further.
prove me wrong, gayle
as for your discussion, i do find it interesting that you have to resort to quoting another…do you have any thoughts that are your own?
I mean, I thought the point was to “debate” you. If I wanted to debate joseph, I’d go to far and wide
Well Tori, you and I are not discussing anything. You had your chance to raise this when I posted that same comment two days ago at DBT’s.
So I will wait for Paul.
Joseph seems to overlook the fact that the manufacturing sector in Canada, particulalry in Ontario and Quebec, is indeed heading for an apocalyptic doomsday, as aresult of inflation, which has seen its highest level in awhile. Economists all attribute the higher inflation rate to energy costs
Canadian manufacturing companies are getting walloped hard because of the energy costs. Their solution to overcome these costs is to move production offshore, particularly China and India.
As those countries take our manufacturing jobs and money, so too do THEIR emissions increase. China and India have plans to put 1 coal-fired plant online every week for the next 5 years. They already have a huge advantage with the wages paid there, slapping on extra costs for our manufacturers results in two things, increased prices or plant closures. Either choice is not pretty
I wonder if Joseph has been grocery shopping in the last six-months? The increase on food prices is astronomical. This is due to inflation caused by energy costs, getting food to market. And those smaller cars people are buying get to the dealership by a transport running on diesel. The automakers are now ramping up their destination charges to cover the increased cost. And its the car buyer who pays that charge.
Do you really want to throw lighter fluid on an already lit fire?
“Well Tori, you and I are not discussing anything. You had your chance to raise this when I posted that same comment two days ago at DBT’s.”
well, that’s funny…I could have sworn that this was not Gayle’s blog…so I’m guessing you don’t get to make to rules, however much you want to.
“I wonder if Joseph has been grocery shopping in the last six-months? The increase on food prices is astronomical.”
I can easily attest to this…the pasta I usually buy DOUBLED in price within a month
well, that’s funny…I could have sworn that this was not Gayle’s blog
I don’t know what’s holding her back from starting one.
I think it’s time Gayle started her own blog, she could write whatever she wanted to then.
Paul – as I said, I do understand the concern. I am not saying you are wrong, necessarily, but I am not sure you are right either.
(how’s that for non-committal).
That is why I am waiting to hear from economists. So far Don Drummond has lent his support to the plan, and, of course, many other countries have carbon taxes and apparently both presidential candidates have promised to impose one as well.
There is no doubt prices will go up. Personally, I am not likely to benefit much from the tax relief, and my current home is hardly energy efficient, so I expect to feel a major impact if this plan goes through.
I think most people agree the success of this plan will depend on whether people will be willing to pay to save the environment. It will be a tough sell for sure.
but then she would actually have to put herself out there and have the tables turned- and have others critique HER…
and that’s just not done.
…I think most people agree the success of this plan will depend on whether people will be willing to pay to save the environment…
Gayle, what assurances do we have that this plan will ‘save the environment’? I’m not trying to corner you here. I sincerely want to know.
Well Joanne – feel free to ban me if you do not want me here. In fact, all you have to do is ask me to leave and I will do so, no questions asked.
Tori can say whatever she wants – but a discussion with me requires my participation, and that bird has flown…
“many other countries have carbon taxes”…
and there are many reports of revolts and very unhappy citizens over the increased cost of living…
let’s do it!!!
“Tori can say whatever she wants – but a discussion with me requires my participation, and that bird has flown…”
you can not possible know how upset that makes me feel
I don’t feel cornered, and I do not think this plan, all by itself, will save the planet.
I believe it is designed to encourage people to make more environmentally favourable choices. I think it is a step, in the hopes that the first step will make people more willing to take the second.
It is also part of a larger plan that includes targets and regulations. This is the tax portion.
I will have to leave you good people now – at least for a while. My environmentally unfriendly home awaits…
Gayle, if I wanted to ban you, I would have done it a long time ago. You give me a window into the Liberal mind. It is a place that frightens me, but I need to be able to understand it.
Thanks for the debate. We’ll pick this up another day.
“So far Don Drummond has lent his support to the plan”
With caution Gayle – he himself said it cannot be revenue neutral.
Gayle wants debate on her terms – in other words – she was probably dying just waiting so she could use Joseph’s comment and no one would take the bait until Paul did.
Funny thing – I said EXACTLY the same thing to her on TT’s blog about the fact that things are changing already – we have become more enviromentally consious and the oil companies (who seem to be at the brunt of the matter) have put emmission controls in place – this plan is a day late and a dollar short and will not be overkill.
But I guess it wasn’t quite put the way she wanted it??
Gayle, I think Dion is sincere and believes in this plan. But really, this plan is just going to kill the economy and hurt many Canadian’s.
If I use the calculator on the Liberal site, my savings are $550. As I stated earlier, the increase in my gas alone will eat over $300 of that. The town here estimates the average homeowner would face a $98 increase. That brings me up to $400. I still have to factor in my increased heating, hydo, food, products purchased, which will more than eat up my savings. I would think a fair guess is I will be out-of-pocket in excess of $500.
And here is my biggest problem with the plan. If Dion and the Liberal’s want to increase social spending, then say it. Don’t continue with the B.S. that its revenue neutral, because for many taxpayers that is utterly false. And don’t run around with your sky-is-falling rant about we need to do this to save the planet, because Dion knows as well as anyone that the worlds emissions will continue to rise. Having manufacturers move production to a country using coal rather than clean energy does nothing for the planet, the unemployes workers, or the country.
A quick look at the Liberal plan shows tax cuts of $9 billion, and increased spending of $15.5 billion. That is $6.5 billion in new social spending. It has nothing to do with emissions.
In reference to Don Drummond, if you read through his full press release, he states that there will be winners and losers, both individuals and business.
“I believe it is designed to encourage people to make more environmentally favourable choices.”
first, I hardly call it “encouraging” when your choice is either pay a lot more tax or extreme amounts of tax if you decide to drive to work. A 4 cyl still needs carbon fuel- maybe not as much as an SUV, but there’s not getting around the fact that you will need gas.
Persoanlly, I don’t. We chose to live and work in the same town for that very reason. I have not driven our 1 car in months. I either bike or walk where I need to go.
But Iknow other are not so lucky. They can’t afford to live in the town they work in- or look for a new job. Maybe instead of driving they use transit- but transit uses fossil fuels, too. Maybe they only have their cars for transport, because there is no transit where they live, and the necessities (grocery store, schools) are not nearby.
Again, I’ve mentioned this before- if the polls are correct and people want something done about the environment, surely these same people are already doing these changes to try to reduce their use.
And again, you have yet to address the whole crux of the thing- which is what happens if carbon usage does go down- and along with it the revenues from a carbon tax. How do tax cuts (read social spending) get funded then?
“It is a place that frightens me”
ROTFLMAO!
thank god I was not drinking coffee when I read that!
Tori, I seem to have that effect on people!
Fortunately nobody’s sent me a bill for their keyboard yet.
This from Joseph”s comment re: Gayle:
“The main difference, as I see it, is the windfall profits the energy companies have experienced would be instead partially redirected to the consumers who need it. If you own an oil company in Alberta, that might crimp your style mildly. But it’s not going to harm the man on the street in Calgary, or the woman with a child in Toronto, because they don’t benefit from those record profits today. Something to think about as the sketches of a world pivoting on the edge emerge in the coming weeks.”
Actually Joseph, they do benefit from those record profits. You see, those companies pay things such as royalties, and taxes on their profits. Those taxes trickle through all levels of government. I think the number a few years ago was that the tarsands contributed $40 billion to government revenues yearly. When that mother in Toronto takes her child to the doctor, part of that visit paid by ohip came from oil taxes and royalties. And that man in Calgary has probaly seen some pretty good pay raises in the last number of years. Unless he is unemployed and living on welfare, in which case that assistance money he gets might have come oil taxes and royalties.
“Gayle wants debate on her terms – in other words – she was probably dying just waiting so she could use Joseph’s comment and no one would take the bait until Paul did.”
Actually i fully expected something like that and looked forward to it. One read of Joseph’s comment gave insight into the mind of those who think it’s a great plan. They have all adapted the Jean Chretien philosophy when he dealt with the referendum.
Don’t worry. Everything’s fine.
I could have added the job losses at GM, Air Canada, etc., to point out Joseph’s delusion that everything is just hunky dory here in Canada. Or pointed out a lot of seniors are in dire straits because of the increase in their energy costs.
But hey, who likes overkill.
“And here is my biggest problem with the plan. If Dion and the Liberal’s want to increase social spending, then say it. Don’t continue with the B.S. that its revenue neutral, because for many taxpayers that is utterly false. And don’t run around with your sky-is-falling rant about we need to do this to save the planet, because Dion knows as well as anyone that the worlds emissions will continue to rise. Having manufacturers move production to a country using coal rather than clean energy does nothing for the planet, the unemployes workers, or the country.”
This is actually kind of its own rant.
Dion has made it perfectly clear that one purpose of the tax plan is to transfer money to the lower income earners. He also made it clear in the plan that “revenue neutral” refers to the broad sense and not to the individual sense.
Your comment that this WILL kill the economy is really just your opinion, which may or may not be borne out. So far the one economist who has weighed in does not seem to share that opinion.
But mostly what I take from this comment is that you do not believe we can do anything about global warming – and that is something I simply do not agree with you on.
“But mostly what I take from this comment is that you do not believe we can do anything about global warming – and that is something I simply do not agree with you on”
Actually Gayle, we can do a lot. My home has the highest efficiency furnace you can get. Same for my ac unit. When I bought the house new three years ago I paid extra for the premium thermo windows. I car-pool to work. I live close to Lake Ontario and use the breeze quite often rather than the a/c. I recycle evrything possible. I use aclothesline in the summer. I walk when distance permits.
But here is my problem. If it’s really about saving the planet, then Dion, the U.N.,Gore, Suzuki, whoever, should be railing against China and India opening hundreds of coal-fired plants. China’s emissions rose last year more than Canada’s TOTAL emissions.
You have Dion ranting on about the dire need to cut emissions, while former PM Paul Martin, still collecting a paycheck, spends many of his days in China helping develop those coal plants with Maurice Strong.
Manufacturing jobs are being lost to China, using dirty energy.
Dion wants to slap a carbon-tax on diesel. Diesel is a cleaner burning fuel than gasoline. Diesel automobiles cost more than regular gas powered, and now he wants to tack on a disincentive to prospective buyers?
Gayle, I suggest scanning the newspapers online daily. Toronto is expecting an increase of costs in the millions due to a carbon tax. Dion wants people to use transit, yet wants to tax the fuel those buses run on. The auto assembly plants use millions in electricity and heat a year, and Dion wants to increase that cost. Hospitals will be hit hard by the extra energy costs, at a time when their funding is already greatly strained.
You know, if Dion had of put this plan into effect in 2004, I might have been a little more accepting of it. But bringing it out at a time when the world economy is struggling, our energy costs are skyrocketing, manufacturing jobs are leaving the country, iflation is taking off, etc., is just plain dumb.
And yet the environment still needs help, notwithstanding the economy.
And while it is nice that you have done all that – really, it is (although I am opposed to AC in houses, and yes I have been in Ontario during the summer), not everyone has done so, or can afford to do so. The plan is truly about forcing people into it. I have no problem with that.
“And while it is nice that you have done all that – really, it is (although I am opposed to AC in houses, and yes I have been in Ontario during the summer), not everyone has done so, or can afford to do so. The plan is truly about forcing people into it. I have no problem with that.”
HUH?
you say that not everyone will be able to afford to do the things paul has done, but they will be able to afford Dion’s plan?
just a few posts ago, you said it was about “encouraging” people to make choices…now it’s about “forcing”…
Gayle, losing plants and jobs to other countries using dirty energy does not help the enviroment. Those ghg emissions from the coal-plants in China don’t stay there. They go around the globe.
Whats needed is a global plan where evry country is on an equal basis in regards to lowering emissions. Penalizing Canadian’s only to have China or another country pick up the savings in emissions does nothing to help the enviroment. The enviroment is worldwide.
If it’s really the crisis Dion keeps saying it is, show me the expected reduction under the plan. According to the plan, the Liberal’s figures indicate that they estimate emissions in year 4 to be the same as now.
So???
“The influential think-tank invited the city’s business leaders, bankers, economists, energy experts and political analysts to a two-hour working lunch last week to discuss the challenges of crafting a carbon tax that doesn’t undermine Canada’s competitiveness, doesn’t exacerbate regional disparities, doesn’t cause federal-provincial battles and doesn’t trigger a public backlash.
It was an enlightening session. The three panellists – Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University, Thomas Courchene of Queen’s University and Sam Boutziouvis of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives – laid out the complexities of taxing fossil fuel use in daunting detail.
It would force exporters to jack up their prices, putting them at a disadvantage in world markets. To protect Canada’s share of global trade, Ottawa might have to exempt products destined for sale abroad from the tax.
It could induce energy-dependent manufacturers to move to countries with lax environmental policies. The one percentage point cut in corporate tax rates that Dion is offering, plus the incentives for investing in green technologies, may not be enough to stem the outflow.
Imposing a carbon tariff could contravene Canada’s trade obligations. It is unclear how a Liberal government could penalize imports from countries with lax environmental policies without violating the World Trade Agreement.
Putting a price on pollution would hurt some regions more than others. The impact would be particularly severe in the industrial heartland, which is already reeling from high energy prices and a sputtering economy; and the western oil sands, which spew huge amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Finally, all the revenue from Dion’s carbon tax would flow into federal coffers. Provinces that took the lead – such as British Columbia with its groundbreaking carbon tax and Quebec with its tax on oil and gas distributors – would be expected to join the federal plan, losing their right to distribute the proceeds of the tax according to provincial needs.
“This is going to be messy – really messy,” Jaccard warned.
No one in the room needed much convincing. For all Dion’s talk about simplicity and fairness, it is clear the “green shift” he is proposing would be one of the most complex, challenging and divisive policy initiatives in Canadian political history”
“If it’s really the crisis Dion keeps saying it is, show me the expected reduction under the plan. According to the plan, the Liberal’s figures indicate that they estimate emissions in year 4 to be the same as now”
There is an expected reduction – I quoted it above. Not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Can you refer me to the page number?
As for your second post – I do not expect it to be easy. Not at all.
I just think it is necessary.
I would be interested in hearing from these people themselves, rather than a report that purports to summarize them all into a few sentences.
I’ll have to find the link, but basically some economists crunched the numbers in year 4, using Dion’s numbers for revenue and the rate of $40 a ton. They did the math and figured the numbers indicate x$ revenues from y$ carbon taxes, with the answer equalling the same number of tons of emissions as in 2007.
I would be interested in seeing that.
As I said, I have not made my mind up about this plan as of yet. I do need to hear from the experts (nothing personal
).
I suspect we will be hearing much more as the summer goes on.
OK, I’m a little confused. Dion and garth stated this week Dion has been working on his plan for 2 years.
So tell me Stephane and garth, how do you explain this?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20071010/dion_alta_071010/20071010/?hub=QPeriod&subhub=PrintStory
Yes Paul – he changed his mind. We all know that.
“As I said, I have not made my mind up about this plan as of yet. I do need to hear from the experts (nothing personal
).”
But Gayle – you discount any “expert” who discounts THE PLAN as being not credible; or not having looked at it; or horrors of horrors a Tory.
“Nothing personal” Gayle – but you have been presented with expert opinion that you have discounted for any number of your vague reasons.
Who would be the “experts” that you would believe.
Oh – and by saying you have not made up your mind gives you a bit of an out when it all falls apart – that way you can come back and say that you said that you had reservations from the start. You did it with the whole EC set up so the precedent is there.
“But Gayle – you discount any “expert” who discounts THE PLAN as being not credible; or not having looked at it; or horrors of horrors a Tory.”
Link please.
http://returnofthetory.btblogs.ca/2008/06/20/calling-a-spade-a-spade/#comments
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2008/06/23/so-whos-the-bully-now/#comments
And now I am off to Gayle’s backyard for the day!
AG – perhaps you misunderstood.
“But Gayle – you discount any “expert” who discounts THE PLAN as being not credible; or not having looked at it; or horrors of horrors a Tory.”
Link please.
Try, you know, providing a link to where I said I would discount any expert who discounts the plan.
Take all the time you need…
Unless you think you and Tori qualify as experts. If so, I assure you, you don’t.
Gayle – you are the one who misunderstands. In both of these blogs experts were spoken about and in some cases linked to. You discounted those experts. I am not going to do your research for you – I have provided links to these blogs – all you have to do is go back and read through the couple of hundred posts to see how you discount anyone who speaks against THE PLAN.
I will assure you that I in no way believe I am an expert on this -Tori is more so.
Bring me the quotes.
But you won’t – because you can’t.
Look at how I am discounting the experts:
“Paul – Can you tell me what sites you are taking these from?
I am interested in whether these are fact based criticisms that have been substantiated, or just wild predictions of doom and gloom.
I mean, anyone can say “but there will be inflation”. It is the methodology they use to reach that conclusion that interests me.”
“I am aware there will be criticism of this plan – criticism from people who know what they are talking about.
…
I intend to read a lot of expert commentary on the plan before I decide if I think it will work or not. Commentary from BOTH sides of the issue. I recommend you do the same.”
“I would be interested in hearing from these people themselves, rather than a report that purports to summarize them all into a few sentences.”
“I would be interested in seeing that.
As I said, I have not made my mind up about this plan as of yet. I do need to hear from the experts (nothing personal
).”
The fact you think these quotes are “discounting” experts says a lot about you. And believe me, it is not flattering.
I suggest you quit while you are behind.
well, did u read anything from Lomborg?
apparently dion met with the sun’s editorial board…
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/06/26/5988051.php
“”I’m confident we will have significant reductions. I’m not telling you specific numbers because you would not trust me,” he said. ”
Dion said this about GHG reductions and why there are no concrete numbers on reductions in his plan
You’ve got to be freaking kiddin’ me!?!?!?!
“well, did u read anything from Lomborg?”
I am in the process – there is alot of info out there about his theories so I am taking time digesting them. At least he is using scientific data and not pictures taken from old movies to prove his theories.
Now will Gayle?? After all – this is who she seems to trust more than anyone else.
“”I’m confident we will have significant reductions. I’m not telling you specific numbers because you would not trust me,” he said. ”
Snort – Double Snort – Triple Snort!!!
”I’m confident we will have significant reductions. I’m not telling you specific numbers because you would not trust me,” he said. ”
Tori, I can’t find that quote. Is it in Goldstein’s column? Thanks.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/06/26/5988856-sun.html
not lorrie’s column, but another…
AG,
it will be interesting to see Gayle’s take on Lomborg-if she’s read his stuff or watched the 5-part lecture on youtube
Found it, Tori. Thanks.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=e7b92ba3-303c-4cd7-9769-9581b7bc31c7
So Gayle – here is a link to an expert – an economist – I will assume you would consider him an “expert”.
OF course Stephan Harper is ALSO an economist so could be considered an expert but I am sure you will find every reason in the book to discount his ideas on THE PLAN!
[...] scrutiny: Stephane Dion and the Sun Editorial Board H/T to Tori for this [...]
“well, did u read anything from Lomborg?”
Does he comment on the plan, because if I recall correctly you wanted me to read him to explain your view on global warming. I assume you can tell me yourself how you feel about global warming – can’t you? (you did, so I guess you can).
Not to mention the fact that if you are suggesting not reading this guy amounts to my saying I would discount any expert who discounts the plan, then you are just wrong, because, of course, it means nothing of the sort.
“So Gayle – here is a link to an expert – an economist – I will assume you would consider him an “expert”.”
He doesn’t really say much, but he makes a point. And if Harper is such an expert, surely he could have come up with something better than he did?
In any event, as I said, I will read experts on both sides of the issue, and make up my mind. I won’t even bother asking if you will do that because your mind was made up long before the plan came out. Unless you are prepared to educate yourself, and discuss this like an adult (and I am not holding my breath on that score), I think we have said everything there is to say.
I will leave you with these quotes from various experts. You may not want to read them because they do not agree with you…
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/25/realignment/
he explains why a carbon tax and kyoto are not efficient ways to solve the problem.
pen your mind, gayle. I have at least read both sides and came to my own conclusions. I guess you could just read only “experts” who agree with a carbon tax and cover your ears to the other side…
“I am aware there will be criticism of this plan – criticism from people who know what they are talking about.
…
I intend to read a lot of expert commentary on the plan before I decide if I think it will work or not. Commentary from BOTH sides of the issue. I recommend you do the same.”
“I would be interested in hearing from these people themselves, rather than a report that purports to summarize them all into a few sentences.”
“I would be interested in seeing that.
As I said, I have not made my mind up about this plan as of yet. I do need to hear from the experts (nothing personal
).”
“He doesn’t really say much, but he makes a point.”
“In any event, as I said, I will read experts on both sides of the issue, and make up my mind.”
Do you have a problem with basic English Tori?
If not, stop lying. Your desperate attempt to undermine me makes you look pathetic.
so, that’s wonderful…nothing stopping you from reading/watching lomborg
and when you do, I’d love to “discuss” it with you
Only time Tori…only time.
“I would be interested in hearing from these people themselves, rather than a report that purports to summarize them all into a few sentences.””
Um Gayle – did you go to the link – because if you did you would see that the writer himself is the economist; therefore I think that could constitute “hearing from these people themselves”.
On your terms, Gayle, on your terms
If only that was the article my quote was referring to.
But it’s not.
At what point will take my suggestion you quite while you are behind…?
it’s ok, AG.
obviously gayle has no intentions of actually getting all the sides, as she claims she wants to.
Instead we get lost of excuses as to why she won’t.
no skin off my back. if she wants to be ignorant, that her choice. the only one she’s hurting is herself.
“At what point will take my suggestion you quite while you are behind…?”
Ah yes – Gayle is now being dismissive which means that she cannot further debate this issue. She claims she wants to hear from “experts” – she demands links and when you give her links, she demands quotes and when you give her actual quotes she realizes that she has wound herself into a circle and can’t get out so she dismisses.
Poor Gayle.
“If only that was the article my quote was referring to”
If only you realized that I was making a general response to your statement
“I would be interested in hearing from these people themselves, rather than a report that purports to summarize them all into a few sentences.””
You keep asking for experts, for quotes, for links yet when those are provided, you ask for more. Yet you seem to only want to debate THE PLAN – since when do you feel you get to set the agenda for debate, Gayle. This is not your blog, you are free to come and comment as long as you are considerate, which you are, but you are lowering the level of disscussion with your constant demands as to how the direction the discussion takes. Others have suggested you get your own blog – that would allow you to be in control of what is discussed, who is allowed to discuss and the direction the discussion takes. Perhaps that would suit your style of debate a bit better.
So answer a question Gayle – do you have any intention of reading any of the “links” that have been provided by many of the commenters?
Yes
or
No
AG – take a course in reading comprehension and get back to me.
Avoiding the question I see – I guess that says alot about you, Gayle.
No AG – it just means I am tired of having to go back and explain, again, that when you take words out of context you change their meaning.
Intelligent people know this. You, apparently, don’t.
I suggest you go and find another hobby. We have an entire summer to weigh and assess this plan. Personally, I intend to do so with an open mind. You, obviously, have already come to your conlusion.
As for your question, since I have already said, oh, about 3 or 4 times now, that I intend on reading experts on both sides of this issue, I think you can take that as a “yes” (again, intelligent people would have figured that out by now).
One of the reasons I sought input from people over here is because I know I can expect them to have links to people who oppose the plan.
I am not interested in theories about how global warming does not exist. That is a boring debate. If you want to argue that then go find someone else to play with, and I really do not care what you think about the fact I do not want to discuss that with you.
“One of the reasons I sought input from people over here is because I know I can expect them to have links to people who oppose the plan.”
But you see Gayle – when you ask for comments, links, quotes etc. etc. etc. and then dismiss them; it makes us wonder why you come here when you obviously have your mind made up. If you accepted the answers to your questions more graciously, perhaps you might learn something.
As far as you thinking I care one iota about whether you want to discuss things with me well, my dear, you really are mistaken.
So if you really want to learn – then look at all sides – if Dion is presenting a plan that deals with global warming, you cannot take global warming out of the equation. I would think that someone as smart as you would know that.
“But you see Gayle – when you ask for comments, links, quotes etc. etc. etc. and then dismiss them;”
Link
Don’t bother – you won’t find one.
I could repost all my quotes, yet again, but I see that would be a waste of time.
I have not dismissed anything.
Grow up and get over this already.
[...] Wright’s situation is not funny though and she needs your help to fight the LPC Machine. A Facebook page has been started and she is asking for your [...]
[...] Gabrielle, let me introduce you to Jennifer Wright. Posted in Dion, Election fever, Liberal arrogance [...]
[...] And of course we have the story of Jennifer Wright, who also feels "used". (Or at least they "used" her Green Shift name.) [...]
[...] Sandy’s Update: Joanne at Blue Like You has a post now as well. And, check [...]