Blue Like You

Isn’t Jennifer Wright making an unnecessarily huge deal out of the LPC’s rather liberal use of her company’s name, "Green Shift "?

I mean, we’re talking about The Natural Governing Party here - not some rinky dink little company. Shouldn’t Jennifer Wright be bending over in humble gratitude? Isn’t imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

[sarc off]

The Blue Zone has a post up about Jennifer Wright’s excellent piece in today’s National Post - The real Green Shift.

Blue Zone finishes his post with:

…Best wishes to Jennifer Wright and GreenShift.ca. My wife’s parents are small business owners so I can understand the frustration she is feeling at having her business’ identity stolen by Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party of Canada.

So is this identity theft? Identity highjacking?

Or did The Liberal Party of Canada just decide to hear ‘o.k.’ when the victim firmly shouted "NO!!!"

Jennifer Wright tells her side of the story:

…I was beyond livid when I realized that, despite my very vocal objections, during the coming general election, 308 Liberal candidates would be promoting an election platform whose environmental tax program would carry the hijacked name of our company …

…When first warned of the planned hijacking, we immediately told them that we objected and would do our utmost to protect our rights. Nonetheless, we woke the following morning to find our name on their tax plan and splattered in papers and broadcasts from coast to coast. We followed up with a formal cease and desist notice, which also failed to elicit a response. Accordingly, we were left with no choice but to sue them …

Does this sound like a lady who is willing to give in, Stephane?

Or when she said NO, did you hear "Mais, oui!"?

Is this an example of how you plan to respect the rights of all Canadians if you become Prime Minister?

* * * *

Related: Liberal Party of Canada accused of Identity Theft - NB Tory Lady.

And Ralph Goodale speaks out about Jennifer Wright’s company Dion’s carbon tax - Green Shift for a Warming Planet.

Nicely debunked here. H/T SDA.

* * * *

Friday Update: Blue Zone - How dare she? Now the Liberals want to control Jennifer Wright’s travel plans and who she talks to!

I must be spending way too much time out in the sun this summer (when it hasn’t been raining). I just finished reading Michael Den Tandt’s piece, "It’s Time for Dion to Stand up and Fight ", and am deeply troubled.

O.K. The title seems reasonable. A so-called leader can only back down a finite number of times before losing all credibility.

However, this paragraph is what’s bothering me:

As Dion gauges his timing, he’ll be given pause by the Liberals’ continuing financial woes. But he’ll be buoyed by the generally positive press his Green Shift has gotten this summer. He knows that economic slowdowns are ripe with possibility for opposition parties. And, he’ll be sick and tired of being taunted.

I would really appreciate it if my Liberal friends can provide some links to relevant polls and news articles. Thanks in advance for your assistance.

I must try to be more attentive.

* * * *

Update: So far, all I’ve been able to come up with to substantiate his claim is this - Harper hist a snag. Strangely enough, it’s by the same columnist.

Funny that…

Please check out the comments following this bit of Star propaganda - Bring on fall election, Liberals say. And note the use of the word "hurled" in the Star’s ‘news’ story. (H/T to Alberta Girl).

Reid seems a bit perturbed with Den Tandt too. Glad I’m not the only one.

Related: And if the parents won’t listen to the Green Rhetoric, you can always work on the kids - Children enlisted as ‘Climate Cops’.

* * * *

Sunday Update: Phantom Observer has a great post up that was listed at Jack’s Daily Blogger site - Diebel Decodes an Undeliberate Dion.

The following is pure speculation, but please indulge me for a moment.

Who’s missing from the front lines of Stephane Dion’s Green Shift summer tour?

That’s right - the two contenders to the throne, Iggy and Rae.

As Raphael points out, Stephane Dion is having great trouble providing details to his plan. He stumbles when asked pointed questions and refers inquirers to the website or grandchildren who are presumably brighter than the person asking the question. And he won’t tell us specific numbers, because we wouldn’t trust him anyway, right?

Here’s my theory: Back in March, Bob Rae wanted Dion to hold off on bringing down the government until he had his seat firmly established in the by-election and was able to get some face-time in the House during Question Period.

Meanwhile, Dion’s carbon tax plan is being developed and fine-tuned with the assistance of various party and caucus members. Dion has a vision. It is so sweet because it addresses his three pillars of a richer, fairer and greener Canada in one package. Unfortunately, that simple plan grows into 48 pages of confusion.

And perhaps some of his caucus supported his delusions of grandeur by telling him that this bold policy will finally annihilate his image as a ‘weak leader’. Because how could a weakling take such a risk? I can just see them clapping right now, as Dion beams and soaks up the adulation.

The plan is then christened "The Green Shift" even though the principles are keenly aware of a small environmental company already holding the name ‘Green Shift’. The theory is that Jennifer Wright should be so lucky as to be getting all this free publicity. But why didn’t anyone suggest that she might be a tad annoyed, and maybe launch a lawsuit or something?

Then when the threat of having to force an election is safely out of the way, The Green Shift is unveiled at the end of Parliament and Dion sets out on his road tour to sell the plan.

The problem is that what sounded so simple in theory is getting a lot of pesky questions throw at it. The party line to check the website is starting to sound hollow. Even some of Dion’s own candidates are publicly stating that constituents aren’t swallowing the ‘revenue neutral’ aspect. They are suspicious - especially when they’re not getting straight answers.

And where are the party elders? Where is the backup? Has Dion been hung out to dry?

Oh, he’s brave alright. But is he wise? Does he have good judgment? Was he set up by some of his caucus who are weary of having to defend their seat-warming policy to their constituents?

Are there some who secretly hope that Dion’s plan crashes and burns before the next leadership review at the end of the year?

The tale will be told after the September by-elections. If the Liberals hold onto their existing seats, look for an election this fall.

However, if Guelph or (especially) Westmount go anything but red, Dion’s Green Shift days are over.

* * * *

Update : Please don’t forget to vote at the Poll Page - What is the most serious issue facing Canada today? One day left until this poll closes. Thanks.

Very intriguing article in the Hill Times (H/T to Jad) . Right on Course also picks up on it.

Alberta Ardvark has two excellent posts on this topic - Another day, and more green shift lies revealed, and Ralph Goodale and the mystical Liberal money fairy.

What I’ve been hearing an awful lot from the Liberal camp and apparent supporters of Dion’s Green Shift, is that at least he has a plan, so therefore it’s better than nothing, right?

But is it really?

The assumption with that logic is that no matter what we do to try to solve an existing problem, the effort to do so outweighs any tendency to sit back and study the problem further. In other words, the result doesn’t matter, as long as we’re doing something.

So if someone has a an infected finger, should we therefore chop it off instead of seeing if antibiotics might solve the problem first?

Perhaps this isn’t the best example, but the fact remains that many of the kneejerk reactions to AGW and climate change are proving to be ineffective and causing other problems. Biofuels spring to mind here because this was first seen as a panacea for our oil dependency, but now we’re seeing the effects which include higher food prices and increased world hunger due to crops and fields being converted to grow corn and other grains for fuel.

I just finished watching Stephane Dion being interviewed by Robert Fife on CTV’s Question Period. Dion was saying something to the effect that since almost half of all Canadian goods are exported, then the tax on carbon will be paid by both foreigners and Canadians, while the benefits would be enjoyed by Canadians alone in the form of tax deductions.

My question for Stephane Dion would have been to ask what happens when people in other countries stop buying our goods because they are too expensive? And what good is a tax deduction if you don’t have a job because the products you manufacture are no longer competitive in a global market? (You blew it there, Robert.)

Lorrie Goldstein points out the flaws in other so-called solutions, including cap-and-trade, carbon credits, carbon trading markets, etc. in today’s column, Carbon Credits’ dirty secret.

He mentions allegations of "corruption, profiteering and ineffectiveness" regarding Kyoto , and that it guarantees that "future emission increases, not decreases" - not exactly the result we’re looking for.

So I sent Lorrie an email asking him exactly what did he see as a viable solution to the problem of man made global warming?

In his very prompt and thoughtful reply, he directed me to one of his recent columns, Carbon Quacks - Canadian politicians in denial about real solutions to climate woes. The answer lies near the end of the column:

…Don’t you think that government would focus like a laser on the development of renewable and nuclear energy and carbon capture technology, which will reduce carbon emissions (and deadly air pollution, a separate issue), plus contribute to global stability by reducing the world’s reliance on Mideast oil, which happens to be located where most of the terrorists are?

Wouldn’t fiscally responsible politicians, instead of pretending a new tax or stock market will save us, finance this necessary research and development by redirecting to it the billions of dollars we’re wasting subsidizing mega-rich fossil fuel companies and disastrous ideas like bio-fuels?

They would … if they weren’t reality deniers.

In his email, Lorrie summarized by stating that "the only thing that will actually reduce carbon emissions is a massive and co-ordinated effort to develop nuclear and (practical, affordable, reliable) renewable energy, along with carbon capture technology."

"Last week’s column on politicians being in denial about global warming essentially said, in the negative, what I would do…

…Beyond that, responsible programs to encourage citizens to conserve fossil fuels (which I would do through financial incentives rather than higher taxes) should be expanded, instead of introducing new carbon tax and/or cap and trade carbon market, neither of which will do anything to lower carbon emissions…

He had some other great ideas too, but asked me to refrain from publishing them yet. You’ll just have to wait for one of his future columns! Ha-ha-ha!!!

I wish to thank Lorrie Goldstein for his continual mentoring on the issue of global warming. He has done an incredible amount of research. I find his columns to be very non-partisan, objective and educational.

* * * *

Somewhat Related : There is a new question up on my poll page - What is the most serious issue facing Canada right now? Your participation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Sunday Update: Lorrie Goldstein - The hole in Kyoto’s ‘cap’:

…The most gaping hole in the roof of Kyoto is that 143 of 180 member countries have no cap on their emissions until at least 2013 (if ever), including China, the world’s largest carbon emitter.

Only 37 countries, and, only a handful of major industrial ones, including Canada — but not the U.S., the world’s second-largest emitter, which has refused to ratify Kyoto dating back to when Al Gore was its vice-president — are required to reduce emissions by an average of 5% between now and 2012. (For us, 6%.)

However, as the Christian Science Monitor reported after researching the issue in 2004, up to 850 new coal plants planned by China, India and the United States alone over the next few years — none covered by Kyoto — will put up to five times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, than Kyoto is designed to remove, even if every country required to reduce emissions hits its targets. Many, if not most, including us, won’t…

Steve Janke’s latest post on the trials of Dion was picked up by National Post’s Full Comment - Oops: Liberal nominee Gerry Samson can’t sell green shift (except to Stealth Liberals). (Well done, Steve.)

It seems that the Liberal candidate in Cornwall openly admits to Dion in a Town Hall meeting that people aren’t buying it.

Then one lone voice supporting Dion turns out to be a member of the local Liberal riding executive. Well, there’s an impartial POV for ya!

And a few days ago, a student wrote a letter to the editor saying that she felt "used" by the Liberal Party.

And of course we have the story of Jennifer Wright, who also feels "used". (Or at least they "used" her Green Shift name.)

I suspect Dion truly believes in his plan, but his caucus members must be getting a sinking feeling when they talk to constituents in the real world. Dion’s credibility rests on this one policy, but he’s got to have plants to support it in media events?

I sense another poll coming on. Just need to tweak it.

Update: Please vote now at new poll!

7:30 pm - This poll is already getting lots of traffic. Thanks for your input.

* * * *

This is a must-read from Paul Wells at Macleans - Dion’s strategy: make yourself the target.

Not necessarily the best move, IMHO.

And here is a very quaint Dionesque quote:

"Paul, I want to have elections yesterday…"

Do you not wish this man was your Prime Minister right now????

And how’s this for arrogance?:

…Female voters, however, are smarter and more intuitive. They don’t like Harper; they can tell something is off…

Everyone o.k. with that one? Or did he just insult all men in Canada, and all Conservative women?

And check this out when Dion’s own candidate tries to get a straight answer!!!

Final Poll Results: Will Canadians accept Stephane Dion’s Green Shift plan?

Yes, the man’s a genius - 6%.
No, he’s delusional - 94%.

Total number of votes - 90.

Once again, thanks for your participation.

I think that part of Stephane Dion’s problem is that he still sees the world from an an academic point of view - If it works in theory, then it should work in real life, no matter what unexpected variable might be thrown into the mix.

This simplistic and rather naive perspective is likely what contributes to his aura of sincerity, but his downfall is that he steadfastly refuses to address the negatives or answer technical questions beyond a theoretical context.

Instead, most questions and criticisms of his carbon tax plan are brushed aside with either a rose-coloured description of how Canadians are intelligent and have ‘big hearts’ - as if that will somehow explain the holes in his platform. (Or else he tells reporters that he’s not talking numbers because they wouldn’t trust him anyway! ) He refuses to even consider the possibility that Canadians will not warm up to it:

…Asked whether his future as Liberal Leader would be imperilled by failing to sell such a complex plan, Mr. Dion denied the plan is complicated.

“I think Mr. Harper is underestimating the intelligence of Canadians, the big hearts of Canadians,” he said. He added that other Conservative Party leaders in the world, including Britain’s David Cameron, have suggested green taxes as a way to fight climate change.

Well, considering that even Dion himself admits that Saskatchewan and Alberta would have to endure the lion’s share of the pain, that would make those residents the most philanthropic citizens in the world if they were to comply. Basically he wants those two provinces to finance his vision for a greener, richer, fairer Canada. His green shaft policy would certainly appear to embody those three peel-ers . I can see why he is so excited to sell the plan.

But would it actually achieve those goals? Terence Corcoran explains how Dion’s policy is not based on solid economic principles, and that similar models in Europe have failed to produce the desired results for carbon emission reductions (Economics only thing shifting):

…He is steadfast in his target — carbon emissions at 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 –even though, as I told him, that would mean removing the equivalent of the entire Canadian transportation (including personal auto use) and the entire electric utility sectors in not much more than a decade.

To get there, Mr. Dion seems to have a clear overview and strategy — how he will negotiate harmonization of his $40-a-tonne carbon plan with British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell’s $30-a-tonne plan to create a $70 joint project; how he will approach a U. S. president to work out a continental cap-and-trade emissions network that Canadian firms could join; how the Green Shift will "be very good for Saskatchewan and Alberta" because the heavy tax loads on their energy producers will prompt them "to invest in Canada more."

Some of this is novel theory, more speculative and fanciful than hard economics. Taxes have never before been seen as a spur to more investment…

Moreover:

…Foreign experience with carbon taxes as economic policy is far from the unequivocal success Mr. Dion talks about. He seemed unaware of the record of job losses and uneven economic performance recorded in Europe in the wake of various environmental taxes and energy price moves. Within specific countries, including Sweden, which the Green Shift plan cites as a model, the role of green taxes is a mixed bag. Alleged boosts to new investment do not take place. And, most telling, the impact on carbon emissions has been limited.

The best and most sobering look at Europe’s green tax experiments is a paper by the Centre for European Policy Studies titled The Political Economy of Environmental Taxation in European Countries. After more than a decade of rampant green taxation and regulation, a sort of lab test for every policy fantasy known to economists and politicians, Europe essentially ended up proving the policies really didn’t work.

(Too much to quote here, but please read the whole article.)

So anyway, there goes 2 of Dion’s three peelers. As for the ‘fairer’ one, well that may be accomplished by a massive wealth transfer to the poor, but is that actually ‘fair’ to the western provinces? Something tells me the answer would be a resounding ‘non’.

Yes, of course we’d all seeing rising prices in everything we use daily, but in the west it would hurt the most. Of course, as one of SDA’s readers (Andrew) noted:

...If Dion becomes Prime Minister, watch Canada meet its Kyoto targets and achieve M. Dion’s reduction targets when Alberta and Saskatchewan leave and take their 40% of "Greenhouse emissions" with them. All of a sudden, the problem is solved.

But how would that leave us ‘richer’, Stephane?

So to sum up Dion’s theory, he feels confident that intelligent, generous Canadians will support his plan.

Well, I guess you’ll have to put me under the dumb and selfish category, because I just don’t get it.

* * * *

Update: Post editorial - Liberals are still kicking the West.

And this is a MUST-READ : Lorne Gunter - Dion carbon tax would shaft the west again.

Three BT bloggers assess the reaction of various premiers to Dions’ green shaft:

Steve Janke - No votes? Screw you!

Reid - Green Shaft…

Raphael - How the ‘Green Shift’ is flying around the Premiers.

Yesterday as Stéphane Dion was announcing his Carbon Shift plan, I was trying to survive a white-knuckled ride on Canada’s tallest and fastest roller-coaster, The Behemoth at Canada’s Wonderland. Well, needless to say, I am still here (next time, hands-up!). Yeah, that was awesome. I highly recommend it.

This morning I’m reflecting on Dion’s Carbon Shift/tax/election platform/budget and considering the implications for a major theme park like Wonderland. The energy required to run that park must be frightening. I would assume the proposed tax would affect everything associated with energy - from running the rides, to the restaurants, maintenance of the grounds and rides, and to the costs of all the goods needed to be transported there. That is just off the top of my head. I’m sure there would be more.

Then consider the cost to the tourists wanting to come to the park. How would they get there? Only a very few would be able to walk or bike there. Yes, Dion says no tax on gas (for the moment). However, gas doesn’t magically appear at the pumps. Oil has to be refined. And it requires energy to come out of those pumps. So gas will in fact cost more.

So Wonderland will probably have to pass the increased the cost on to the consumer in order to remain solvent. Consumers will be paying more to get there. Likely some season pass holders will decide that the cost of the increased pass, increased parking (which is already $10 a pop), and the cost of getting there will be prohibitive.

This is just one example of how taxing consumption (which is what a Carbon Tax does) will have a negative impact on the tourist industry. These people then get laid off and collect unemployment.

How is this helpful to a country’s tourist industry that is already reeling with high gas prices, and a high Canadian dollar that is forcing U.S. visitors to stay home?

And don’t tell me that the ‘Revenue Neutral’ aspect will balance my concerns.

‘Revenue Neutral’ means neutral to the government ; not me.

* * * *

Required Reading: The Great Carbon Swindle - Lorrie Goldstein.

The Liberals’ Tax Shift - National Post editorial.

Then and now; GST, Carbon Tax. (Globe )

Sifting through the shift reviews - Calgary Grit.

Liberals give business the shift - Globe.

* * * *

Saturday Update - Record editorial!!! Dion’s green plan needs reality check:

…There are so many other questions: Will the residents of a province like British Columbia, which has its own carbon tax, be taxed twice? Why will the carbon tax apply to heating oil, propane, natural gas, coal and diesel fuel but not gasoline at the pump? If the point is to change human behaviour, why not go after the drivers of the big vehicles? Or is Dion afraid of courting voter backlash? Meanwhile, given the complexity of imposing a carbon tax, is it advisable, or folly, to try, as Dion is, to use the carbon tax to not only decrease pollution but eradicate poverty?

And why are there no clear targets? Sure, the Liberals say they would cut greenhouse gas emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. But how will Dion’s plan get us anywhere near that goal in the coming years? When it comes to such specifics, his plan is strangely silent, devoid of charts, projections, statistics…