Blue Like You

Archive for the ‘Kooky Suzuki’ Category

Toronto Star reporter Linda Diebel picks David Suzuki for Senator, with the following glowing tribute:

…Could it be any more convenient for politicians who profess to care about the environment than to have world-acclaimed Suzuki at hand on Parliament Hill? He knows the difference between rhetoric and a plan...

Oh, he’s got a plan, alright!

*   *   *   *

Update: Lorrie Goldstein has a very interesting column today - The perils of coalition for Ignatieff:

…Indeed, there’s only one scenario where it would make sense for Ignatieff to trigger the coalition deal.

That would be a Conservative budget that so infuriates the public, that the polling all parties will do in its wake shows anger over the budget eclipsing doubts about the coalition…

But what if the budget infuriated the public because it was too leftist in its direction? What if it was deemed to be too socialist and the taxpayers were angry to be propping up failed industries? Then what? Would Jack Layton and his pals move towards the centre?

Would Senator Hargove ask for union concessions?

From a caller on Jeff Allan’s Hour of Rage:

Exactly what kind of energy does that power saw use anyway?

Last week when David Suzuki rolled out his Amazing Carbon Tax Schticht prior to the Federal Budget, I asked Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein if he’d be doing a response. He replied, “All in due time…”

It was well worth the wait.

In The carbon cops are coming, Goldstein exposes the intellectual dishonesty of environmental advocates and politicians who try to woo us to the Green side with tales of how their schemes will be ‘revenue neutral’. As a public service, Lorrie offers his three-pronged guide designed to help us sort through the hot air emanating from Suzuki Nation:

1) When any of them tell you “polluters will pay” to reduce greenhouse gases, they mean you and me.

Whenever they talk about a carbon tax, a “cap-and-trade” system, carbon credits or the regulation of industrial greenhouse gases by government, they are talking about the same thing — higher taxes.

2) This brings us to the second point of our guide: Whenever a politician, or anyone else, claims a carbon tax will be “revenue neutral” nail them down on exactly what they mean.

Politicians and environmentalists like to toss around “revenue neutral” because it sounds as if even with a new carbon tax, you will pay no more in total taxes than you do now.

That’s not what it means. Even if a government was considering a truly “revenue neutral” tax, it may well not be neutral for you. Say you need your car to drive to work because you live in one city and your job is in another. If the government imposes a carbon tax by hiking gasoline prices, it may claim it’s “revenue neutral” because it’s going to return an equal amount in tax incentives for people to take public transit. Problem is, if you don’t have a realistic transit alternative for getting to work, your carbon tax is no longer “revenue neutral.” .

3) Finally, when a politician or environmentalist tells you a carbon tax can be imposed with “minimal” harm to the economy ask them what assumptions they base this on.

In both the recent study on carbon pricing by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and in the one released by the Suzuki Foundation last week, the authors simply assume that while Canada is taxing carbon, the U.S. and our other major trading partners will be doing the same…

And that’s a huge assumption.

Even the Toronto Star takes note of the fact that while this may be a desirable situation, it is clearly not going to happen anytime in the near future. Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, brother of the current Federal Liberal environmental critic David, is not jumping on the bandwagon. He rightly realizes that such a plan would devastate the Ontario economy which is already facing huge challenges competing with China, etc.

As in all things, buyer beware.

Still trying to decipher this bit of Doublespeak from today’s sermon by Saint David - Climate change plan could trigger tax cuts: Suzuki (Globe):

The report argues that making polluters pay a fee for every tonne of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere could raise between $50-billion and $100-billion in revenue annually by 2020.

The report argues that most of that revenue could be used to greatly reduce personal income taxes.

Because manufacturers would never pass on the costs to consumers, right?

And income taxes would come down, of course except for that wee bit would be “put toward renewable energy projects such as wind and solar power.” Most of the windfall would reduce personal income taxes though. Uh-huh. Just don’t forget your charitable donations to the church Suzuki Foundation.

Well, if you can’t scare them to death with Armageddon scenarios, and once you finally realize that jailing them doesn’t work either in a democratic society, then I guess the old snake oil tour is worth a try.

* Denier - Anyone who crosses David Suzuki.

Tomorrow, Kyoto überkop David Suzuki will use a news conference in Ottawa in another attempt to shame the Federal Government into including in its budget a “carbon tax or carbon trading system to cut greenhouse gas emissions”.

If that doesn’t work there’s always jail.

Meanwhile, Kate has highlighted two excellent columns in today’s Sun. Angelo Persichilli asks for some truth from the media about how much environmental changes will cost us and how effective (or ineffective) they’re likely to be - Science and politics overlap the truth.

The ever-witty Lorrie Goldstein explains how the ‘Suzuki Nation’ attempts to shame us lest we dare complain about the high costs of going green and how we’re being hoodwinked into thinking that something might actually be accomplished in the bargain - It’s green fever madness!

Best line:

…And finally in crazytown … Ottawa … where, amongst so many other absurdities on the environmental front, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, a man who can’t control his caucus, has a plan to control the climate…

But Kate’s got a few little gems of her own as she exposes the hypocrisy of jouralists who pretend to care about the environment:

…But let’s back up a little, for this is the end of civilization as we know it, and they’re apparently convinced of that. A planetary emergency, no less.

How does one convinced of impending planetary doom get up in the morning to work in the industry they do - an industry that employs vast numbers of people to travel the country via commercial jet and automobile, that sustains huge media complexes clogged to the ceilings with electricity consuming CO2-belching technology, that hauls tons of satellite equipment to produce on-the-scene reporting?

That indulges in the broadcasting of sporting events? And entertainment “news”?

“We interrupt this report on the last remaining meter of Arctic sea ice to bring you live footage of Britney Spears’ entourage leaving the hospital … John, you’re in the helicoptor, what can you tell us?”

When it comes to curtailing wasteful practices and excessive C02 emissions, shouldn’t they be among the first to go?

From SDA: Y2Kyoto - The Twilight Zone.

Brilliant stuff, Kate!

So as Saint Suzuki gets on the media pulpit tomorrow to whip up his congregation into another lynch-mob frenzy, just remember that there are a few truthful media pundits left.

Cherish them - before they join Harper in the gallows.

As Lorrie Goldstein points out in today’s Sun column (This is non-partisan?), Canada Revenue has a strict policy regarding charitable status:

CRA’s website says charities are “prohibited” from participating in “partisan political activity,” meaning anything that “involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to (my emphasis) any political party or candidate for public office.”

So where does Suzuki get off thinking he can incite students to “put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail, because what they’re doing is a criminal act”?

Oh, he’s giving us a lot of excuse, such as he didn’t mean it literally, and he doesn’t necessarily speak for his foundation. And yet right there on his website is an arrogant piece that starts out by telling you and me what we believe:

Canadians believe that their political and business leaders are falling behind and are out of step with the general population.

Really? I don’t recall being asked. Where did you get your stats from David? The students that you revved up after your campaign speech?

…Isn’t it time we made it clear to our elected officials and business leaders that we want them to get to work on solutions? Who will be the first to come forward and break the ice, to offer up some sound policies to get Canada moving and to help us be a model for other countries?

This of course, is the watered-down version - meant to smooth ruffled feathers after his public partisan outbursts.

As Lorrie says, it’s pretty hard to separate the man from his foundation:

In June, in Toronto, Suzuki claimed the Harper Conservative government was harassing him by repeatedly auditing his foundation. According to the Globe and Mail, he said: “I am being hounded by the current government because I have a foundation that has my name and so they’re trying to take away my charitable (status),” adding he now had to preface remarks with: “Everything I say is my personal opinion, has nothing to do with my foundation.”

Really? Quick — name another member of the Suzuki Foundation aside from Suzuki.

Visit the foundation’s website, davidsuzuki.org. You’ll see a picture of Suzuki at the top beside “David Suzuki Foundation.” Both are to the left and slightly above the “DONATE Now!” icon.

Click on the first featured article, (Feb. 6): “Who will pay for our failure to act on global warming?” where Suzuki criticizes Harper and Stelmach.

How can anyone distinguish the views of David Suzuki from the David Suzuki Foundation?

If David Suzuki wants to keep the very lucrative charitable status for his foundation, he should carefully choose his words - or else just give it up and let free speech prevail.

He can’t have it both ways.

David Suzuki at McGill:

He urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science.

…He gave a scathing critique of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, chastising them for neglecting the environment in favour of economic growth and development of the tar sands...

Well, I suppose if we are supporting Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn in their fight for free speech, we have to allow David Suzuki the right to spout such inflammatory tripe too.

And isn’t his organization supposed to be non-partisan so that it can receive public funding? Can someone please confirm that?

(Update: “…donations from individuals and by grants from other charitable foundations. The David Suzuki Foundation does not accept government grants, except in relation to the direct funding of scientific research through the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.” - FAQ)

In any case, I agree with Lorne Gunter - Shun the hate-merchants.

I’ll be shunning Suzuki. No ‘Nature of Things’ for me, boy. I’ll be shunning the advertisers too.