Blue Like You

Archive for the ‘Kyoto’ Category

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…

For purely partisan reasons, I feel that Stéphane Dion should stick to his guns regarding carbon taxes - and in different times, it could possibly have worked .

However, as Warren Kinsella and others have pointed out, we already have de facto carbon taxes right now with fuel prices escalating across the board. This not only affects the average citizen in terms of heating costs and extra expenses associated with driving a vehicle, but also indirectly affects all the other layers of taxes with rising costs for anything the federal, provincial and municipal governments require in terms of their own needs, which of course are inevitably passed on to the taxpayer. So we are getting the shaft in spades already.

Add to that some ‘tax-shifting’ and the poor average citizen will be mired in extra costs, with dubious returns in terms of income tax reductions. And how could the latter occur anyway, if the costs of everything the burgeoning government bureaucracies require would increase? Private companies that supply the governments would have to pass on their costs directly to the consumer, which again is the person staring at you in the mirror. And of course the rings of government and public service workers wouldn’t be lowering their salaries to accommodate the rising costs, would they?

And what about the seniors? There is a rising wave of Grey Power out there that is not going to take this assault on their meager pensions lightly. Some can barely hold onto their homes as it is. And this is the demographic that is more likely to get out and vote.

So as I said, Stéphane , don’t listen to the nay-sayers! Stick to your plan. Principle is always better than political acuity, n’est-ce pas?

And if you have any trouble selling your vision, just call Dr. Kyoto .

* * * *

Update: Just caught a newscast from Collingwood, Ontario. Shop owners are crying the blues due to cold, rainy weather and high gas prices keeping tourists away. So how would your gas tax help that again, Stéphane?

And BTW, send us a bit of that global warming here in Ontario!!!

Steve Janke - Does David Suzuki advocate exempting industry from the Liberal carbon tax? This is a must-read, folks!

Lily-white Stephane Dion, the model of self-professed integrity, reiterates his plan to vote against the Throne Speech if a new session of Parliament is started in the fall (Election is possible, Dion warns).

This of course could force an election if the other two parties join him. If strict adherence to Kyoto becomes the pivotal issue, then I don’t see how the NDP or Bloc could avoid this action and still maintain their own credibility.

Kaptain Kyoto assures us that we can trust him:

“I never broke my word in 11 years in politics,” Mr. Dion said. “I am a trustworthy person … I want to destroy the sense of cynicism that no politician will stick to his or her word. I always did it. I don’t over-commit and when I’m committing, I will deliver. It’s the message this whole caucus will carry.”

Never mind that the previous (Liberal) government’s record on greenhouse gas emissions under the stewardship of then Environment Minister Stephane Dion was abysmal.

As Dion continues his ‘Yeah-but-you can-trust-me-now’ tour, he assures Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that “he would respect offshore revenue deals with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland even though, as the New Democrats pointed out, he strongly opposed such agreements when he was a cabinet minister.”

CNEWS reports that Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald is prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt (Dion forced to defend previous opposition to offshore deals for N.L. and N.S.) - H/T CBL.

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams of course welcomes him with open arms since ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’; whatever he may have said or done in the past.

Of course, Stephane Dion is not the only politician who said one thing in the past and then appeared to change course when it was deemed politically expedient.

Stephen Harper himself once called Kyoto a ’socialist scheme’ before having his apparent climate change conversion (although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts).

But Stephane Dion is trying to paint himself as some kind of guileless pillar of integrity; a politician who would never break his word.

That is an oxymoron in politics, and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

This was sweet: (QP, Hansard - Friday, April 20, 2007)

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, now the country knows that the Minister of the Environment is trying to scare Canadians with a report based on bogus assumptions and extreme views of the Kyoto accord.

But the minister’s actions we now know were far more devious than that. He claimed that five independent economists support his report, but that is not true. Don Drummond supposedly was a supporter, but now we find out his support was only
grudging. David Keith, the Calgary researcher, said: “I think the report overstates the difficulty of implementing policies in the short term”.

Why did this minister ask for expert opinions, but only used what suited his brazenly partisan purposes?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, we tabled a report yesterday before the committee, a report that set out the implications of a private member’s bill brought forward by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party has been very clear. It does not believe that implementing the protocol would cost anything. It is a Kyoto without any price.

If it were so easy to do, if there were no price, no cost to Canadian industry, why is the member’s own brother begging us not to bring in car emission standards in the province of Ontario?

Heh.

I am growing weary of the massive propaganda ploys from both sides of the Kyoto divide. Canadians want the facts; not political spin or self-serving obfuscation from lobby groups with major vested interests.

John Baird’s gloomy forecast of what complete Kyoto compliance would actually mean is probably a worst-case scenario. David McGuinty accuses Baird of ignoring the economic benefits of green technology development.

I would really like to see some actual figures from both sides, and have them analyzed by a group of truly objective and non-partisan third parties (if there is such a thing).

Buzz Hargrove may be on the right track with his op-ed in today’s Financial Post (Kyoto Impossible). Of course he has a stake in the success of the auto sector, so his bias is obvious. However he does advocate for a cleaner environment, as I expect we all do.

Even the Globe is taking a moderate stand in this controversy in today’s editorial, Those Kyoto Costs:

…The opposition MPs, led by the Liberals, have let crass politics trump their policy judgment. The federal government cannot and should not take such drastic action to meet Kyoto goals.

None of this lets Ottawa off the hook. Global warming is real. The Tories have a duty to produce a substantive package of market-based policies that would foster real reductions, albeit at a slower pace. But the federal government cannot destroy Canada to save it.

Deliberate fear-mongering from either side is not acceptable. Canadians want the truth. We deserve nothing less.

Environment Canada update here.

Mike Duffy Update: David Suzuki is telling us that we Canadians all want action now. Thank you, David. I didn’t know that. It’s great to have someone from the Nanny State do your thinking and talking for you.

Saturday Update: Andrew Coyne - Listen to Baird: This Wolf may be Real.

John Ivison’s column in today’s National Post mirrors my thoughts on Stephane Dion’s “Green Investment Account” proposal (Dion’s naivete on display).

His scheme is intended to make the polluters pay, but guess what? The buck stops at the person staring back at you in the mirror.

The new plan would mean polluting industries could see their top-line expenses grow by $2.5-billion a year if they miss their emission targets.

Canadians who scoff at pleas of poverty from the oil and gas industry may be less smug when they learn the electricity industry is already contemplating passing on the estimated $1-billion in annual extra costs to consumers.

“Sure we would,” said Hans Konow, president of the Canadian Electricity Association. “This is added cost that would be passed through.”

This will just end up being another behemoth Liberal boondoggle, designed to line the pockets of everyone except you and me. The irony is that it doesn’t even necessarily guarantee results in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Jason Kenney calls this plan a ‘lemon’.

The Liberal party sure picked one.

I have been negligent about environmental posting lately.

Lorrie Goldstein has been following this topic with a very balanced approach, and quite often with a great deal of humour.

Today’s column, “Dion’s Top Ten Kyoto Excuses“, playfully suggests what might happen if Dion should become the next Prime Minister (gasp!), and have to follow Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez’s private member’s bill on fulfilling Kyoto obligations. Lorrie brilliantly explains how Dion would weasel out of the edit.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the Kyoto bill was probably one of Dion’s dumber moves.

And he will regret his Pyrrhic victory sooner or later.

Peter Foster’s excellent FP editorial (The Living Come First) puts forward an interesting view on the current popularity of the Kyoto Kult, and the underlying enviro-socialism that drives it.

Sir Nicholas Stern, according to Foster, particularly tends to espouse the concern for the future generations:

The alleged ethical trump card in the enviro-socialist stance is that the market has no way of accounting for the fate of people a hundred or two hundred years hence (although it seems to have done a bang-up job in the past two hundred). Future generations “lack representation.” To discount the future — by this account — is to cheapen the lives of the unborn.

Stern suggests that the unborn should have equal “weights” with present generations. “Are there any persuasive ethical arguments,” it asks, “for discrimination by birth date?” Well, abortion certainly seems to be one, since mothers have by definition to be born before their babies. But in fact we need not get into the thorny ethics of the “Right to Life,” since this is not a matter of the living taking precedence over a fetus, but of the bizarre notion that the living should not take precedence over those who have not even been–and may never be–conceived.

The main precondition for the prosperity of future generations is the health of present generations. Enviro-socialism seeks to turn this obvious logic on its head. But the notion that the present might sacrifice itself to the collective future is bizarre. By impoverishing ourselves we necessarily impoverish our descendents, and make them less equipped to deal with any challenges they might face (and we also further impoverish the present poor, contrary to the redistributionist fantasies of Kyoto).

I’m not sure that I agree with everything Foster says in the editorial, but it is a fascinating read.

The irony, as he points out as an aside, is that all this concern for the unborn seems to ignore the present reality of abortion.

But of course, in a world view where humans are the supreme culprits, I suppose that abortion is simply another tool with which to offer sacrifices to Mother Earth.

Saturday Update: Suzuki lashes out at Alberta premier.

Joseph C. Ben-Ami seems to be another Doubting Thomas.

He questions David Suzuki’s claim that “corporations have not been interested in funding us”.

Oops! He also calls him a “Global Warming Charlatan”. I’m pretty sure that is considered to be blasphemy in the Church of Kyotology.

That nasty K-word keeps popping in the media.

In fact the Sun’s Lorrie Goldstein has not only mentioned Kyoto in today’s Point of View - “McGuinty’s Green Smoke Screen“, but also in his own column featuring the Top Ten Problems with the Kyoto accord (The Kyoto Horror Show).

Sheila Copps throws in her own two cents worth as well (Kyoto Cost Tories Dearly).

The Ontario Government’s disingenuous attempt to portray itself as Kyoto compliant is a topic I’ll leave for another day.

Copp’s piece on the other hand, smacks of everything that causes the public to become cynical about politics, as she urges the government to support opposition’s Kyoto bill:

Why not take a leap of faith and support Kyoto targets? Even if the requisite tonne reduction is not met, politics is about perception.

And there, my friends, is Liberal-think unplugged. Ugh.

Lorrie Goldstein has put together an incredibly insightful list of reasons why the Kyoto targets are flawed and unrealistic. Most have to do with the fact that non-signatory countries produce far greater greenhouse gas emissions than we do.

Copps says, “By standing up as the only party against Kyoto, the Tories were strangely out of step with the House of Commons and the country.”

But Goldstein counters:

Finally, do Canadians support Kyoto? Our national media seem to think so, based largely on a recent Globe/Strategic Counsel poll, which asked people whether we should “try” to achieve our Kyoto targets. That received a 63% to 30% favourable response. But surely, Canadians believe we should “try” to do many things. Whether we’re willing to make unfair sacrifices in a doomed effort, is the real question.

Interestingly, when The Strategic Counsel asked the same people if they supported charging “significantly higher prices” for gasoline and heating their homes — a far more relevant question — the vote was 64% to 34% against.

A CanWest/Innovative Research poll which was in the field at almost the same time as The Strategic Counsel, found about seven in 10 respondents agreed with the statement: “I don’t care whether the new federal government implements Kyoto or not, so long as they take real action to make our environment better.” Hmmm.

So, Canadians appear to support Kyoto, but when asked to put their money where their mouths are, they start jumping off the bandwagon.

I would go further and agree with the Globe’s Jeffrey Simpson, that Canadians have been indoctrinated with the erroneous message that “Kyoto equals concern about climate change“.

So here is my (once again) free and unsolicited advice, this time for Stephen Harper and the CPC. Drop those attack ads right now. Replace them with ads showing the real facts about the effects of Kyoto; both in terms of unrealistic targets and the possible effects on the economy. Lay out a pragmatic plan to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

Expose the opposition and Kyoto for the shams that they are; but show me - don’t tell me.