bk59

Except that the science is based on more than just recorded observations. We have techniques for measuring historical data. It might be a debating tactic if I had just said "Nope, you're wrong. The debate is over." But that is not what I said. I am pointing out that among the experts in the field, the debate is essentially over. Unless some major new evidence comes to light that contradicts everything else so far, then those scientists disagreeing with the idea that humans are changing the climate will remain in the minority. This is the scientific reality, not a debating tactic. OK, you're a "science and tech kind of guy". Then you should know that it's not about you having scientists that make sense to you and someone else having scientists that make sense to them. It's about actual data and seeing what the experts think of that data. When you have (for example) nine out of ten scientists in the field saying one thing and one scientist saying the opposite, then from a scientific point of view the nine hold a lot more weight than the one. So it isn't about consensus. It is about acting on the best available data that we have. Remember, Newton wasn't right about gravity. But we still use his equations today because he was close enough. I'm not really sure what that means. Because a lot of "science kids" out there think that if there is a lot of proof indicating something will cause large problems, then we should do our best to mitigate that risk even if we are still not 100% certain about that something or its precise effects. The example that you actually want to be using is York not Queens or Ryerson. (Why engineers?) It may look that way to you. And to others. That doesn't change the fact that there is good science showing that climate change is happening and that our actions are the significant cause. Luckily I wasn't talking about public consensus or university petitions. I was talking about consensus in the scientific community. And quite frankly, what makes you think that engineers know anything more about this than arts majors? I find it curious that you didn't include science majors anywhere in there. Do you have examples of that? I know the opposite has certainly happened. Wasn't there a scientist "dismissed" by the Harper government for talking about global warming in a document when they first were elected? I believe he was reinstated because of public pressure. Your position is still curious from a scientific point of view. I agree that legitimate projects should not be cancelled just because the person running it has expressed a certain viewpoint. But first, the project has to be legitimate and the view expressed must not be something that could impact the result of the project. Second, even if that political decision was made, how exactly does that affect the legitimate science done around the globe? How does one guy not getting a grant invalidate the overwhelming evidence collected and examined by a huge number of experts in the field?

You're the one who brought up the alleged disincentive to switch to diesel after a carbon tax is introduced. Most people are smart enough to realize that an incentive to switch to diesel will still be there even after a carbon tax is introduced. Already answered. You would know that if you read what gets posted here. Once again your math is wrong. If everyone switched to diesel today passenger vehicle emissions would not be reduced by 30%. First, your numbers show that the drop would be closer to 25% between a gas and a diesel. Irrespective of the number, your statement would only be true if all passenger vehicles in use today were gas vehicles. They are not. Again, it is not just a tax on diesel. It is a tax on many things. And generally people will reduce their emissions by not using those fuels as much. Which is what needs to happen. It needs to happen with gas as well, but you have already conceded that no one will vote for a plan that increases the price of gas. So your "master plan" is to do nothing at all. To not even try to reduce emissions. Good plan. At this point, some reduction is better than no reduction. Just like you have no "GD" idea what other people may or may not be spending to reduce their emissions in total. But that didn't stop you from making a comment did it? Actually a number of posts have been about how the Green Shift is attempting to create a framework where all sources of carbon dioxide emissions get taxed. You disregard this of course, and only focus on diesel cars. It makes it easier to claim that no reduction in emissions will happen if you only focus on one part of the plan.

I will support whatever tax you would like to put on country music. It's not like you would be the only person paying a carbon tax. I would pay it to. But that goes more towards your phrasing and not your underlying point. As to that, the answer is: all the time. No one (or at least very, very few people) agrees 100% with any sitting government. Do you really think I want my tax dollars supporting an ineffective (or nonexistent) emissions reduction plan? Or subsidies to oil companies? Do you think I wanted my income tax to go up when the Conservative government first came to power? This is democracy. For better or worse we all pay for something we would rather not pay for with our tax dollars. That's because it is within our control. More on that below. But even if it wasn't, what is the solution then? Climate change will have huge impacts for our society. So what will we do about it? Or are you saying that the climate isn't changing? Quite frankly, the ship has sailed on that position. Scientists all over the world agree that the climate is changing. They also agree that these changes are occurring because of human actions. (So yes, if we made the problem then the solution is within our control.) Scientific agreement is not 100%. So you will be able to find those who disagree. But science on this scale is rarely, if ever, 100%. What is telling is that you have huge groups of experts in the field all agreeing that human action is causing climate change and they are saying that with about 90% certainty. In scientific terms, that is pretty darn certain. As an analogy, you can have a huge group of scientists saying that the value of gravity on Earth is X. And you can have a small minority saying that it is Y. Which value would you go with? So some may consider the idea that humans are changing the world's climate as a personal belief, but that does not change the fact that this belief is backed up by science. Science that is generally accepted by the global scientific community. It is kind of hard to dismiss that. No, you don't have to agree. Feel free to vote against any plan by any party regarding emissions reductions. After all, I don't agree with some of the things the current government is doing, but I still pay my taxes. As I did with the government before this one. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is this: are you willing to risk the costs associated with ignoring climate change on the assumption that the overwhelming evidence that humans are causing climate change is somehow mistaken?

You must be getting desperate indeed if you're resorting to allusions of communism. What I'm talking about is the disincentive you keep referring to. Except that I am showing numbers of what that disincentive would actually look like. And most people are smart enough to realize that saving $372 per year is better than losing $372 per year, even if in the past they could have saved $449 per year. But please, continue to focus on it. Yes, you're the only martyr in Canada. So aside from your master plan of saying "people should buy diesel cars" how are you suggesting we reduce emissions? No we're not actually. We're talking about an emissions reduction scheme. More specifically, a carbon tax. Even if we are just talking about transportation, there are definitely people doing more than just buying a diesel car.

We don't need to apologize for not allowing illegal immigrants into the country. But maybe we should apologize for being racist. That is what the real issue was. After all, we did not apologize about the residential school system based on the legality of the policy. At the time the schools were legal. We apologized because what happened at those schools was wrong. Likewise the immigration policy at the time was legal. But it was racist. And so we apologize not because they did not meet the immigration criteria, but because the criteria was racist.

Hahaha. Of course. The Liberal plan means forcing someone's will on someone else. Tell me, when the Conservative government proposes a plan is that the Conservative party forcing someone's will on someone else? By your definition all government is forcing someone's will on others. If this is your problem with the plan then you are going to have to search the world long and hard for a country where the only government elected is one that gets 100% of the votes and 100% of the people agree with 100% of what the government says and does. Actually, I will save you some time: you will never find a place like that. So label the Liberal plan as forcing their will on people if you want. It is no different than any other party "forcing their will" on people. Democracy is a b*tch, huh?

If you think that any plan that taxes gas will never be implemented then what is the point? Are you just complaining that the world is unfair? What is the better option for the environment? 1. Introduce a plan that, at the end of the fourth year, treats carbon emissions equally even if the tax on gas does not change within those four years. 2. Do nothing for the environment at all because you want to have a plan that taxes gas even though you admit that no one will ever vote for such a plan. No matter what you say, the Green Shift does deal with emissions. It may not deal with emissions in the way that you want, but it does deal with emissions. And now we get to the real reason behind your opposition. You are pissed because you can only see your own situation. Fair enough. But you also got the benefit of that switch in terms of less money spent on fuel. And let's face it, there are others out there doing even more to reduce their emissions and it is certainly costing them a lot more than it's costing you. You also ignore the fact that you will be saving money on income taxes. That hand in your pocket is also putting some money in. I don't know if it will be equal, but it certainly isn't all about the taking. If you have a way of increasing the tax on gas and still getting your plan passed in Parliament then by all means tell everyone. Otherwise you're just upset that transitioning fuel costs so that emissions are treated equally at the end of four years will affect you more during those four years than others.

I'll give you that some people definitely use it in a patronizing way. But generally these are people who mean "you must change your behaviour" not "we must change our behaviour". The simple fact is that we emit way more than we should. This has to change through a number of methods including new technologies and attempting a more efficient lifestyle. The bottom line is that there needs to be a price on carbon, whether that be a tax or an emissions trading scheme or whatever. For better or worse, people won't try to be more efficient unless they have to pay for something. They changed their behaviour did they? I accept that you see people as driving less, not "pleasure driving", etc. And I do know some people who have acted this way. But I also know many people who do continue to "pleasure drive". So anecdotal evidence isn't really going to help here. I did a quick google search and came up with this. Here is what the article says about gasoline demand: So it looks like, despite a 23% increase in price, Canadians are not changing their behaviour. I have no doubt that public transit in many areas needs to be improved. And if your 10 minute / 90 minute difference is accurate then that needs to be improved. (Maybe as prices rise people will start demanding reasonable public transit.) Your statement about the inconvenience of walking to the bus stop is telling though. Why is that a huge inconvenience? Why does our society have this attitude? Unless you are something like a 30 minute walk from a bus stop this shouldn't be a huge inconvenience. It costs you the time, but nothing else. And it's healthier! The simple fact that you have to walk a bit should not be seen as a reason to avoid public transit. Yes a lot of people feel pressed for time. And we could have a philosophical discussion about the time demands of North American society and the demands of our working life. But at some point we will have to decide what is more important to us: the cost of giving up an extra 30 minutes Monday to Friday, or the costs of doing nothing about climate change. That really isn't obvious at all. There is a lot of room for acting more efficiently with respect to emissions. People think there is no room left because they don't want to give up all of the comforts that they have. If you reject alternatives because it might take a bit longer to get to work or because you might have to walk 10 minutes to a bus stop then obviously there appears to be nowhere to go. Take energy prices for example. Canada has one of the cheapest energy rates in the world. Something like third or fifth lowest. And yet look at how people talk about the electricity rate increases in Ontario. It's as if the world will end if the rate continues to go up. And yet somehow the rest of the world deals with higher rates. My point is that just because we are used to something this does not mean that there is no other way to do it. I take your point that the phrase "changing behaviour" or "changing attitudes" appears very 1984. The sad part is though, this is what has to be done. The difference between how I'm saying it and 1984 is that I think we should all participate in the discussion about how that happens.

Yeah, less appealing in the same way that a man offering you $372 for free is less appealing than a man offering you $449 for free. People would still take the $372.

First, we all know the Green Shift is not a perfect plan. No plan will be environmentally perfect unless we are willing to sacrifice our economy. Like I said though, I don't buy this idea that hordes of people will flee from diesel because of 7 cents per litre. Using the 2004 numbers Wilber was quoting, a 7 cents per litre increase in diesel would reduce the incentive to switch by 17%. Instead of saving $449 in 2004 you would have saved $372 in 2004. People may complain that before the carbon tax they could have saved more, but the fact remains that people can save significant money by switching, even after the carbon tax reaches 7 cents per litre in the fourth year.

Yes, it is. Even if everyone changed to diesel right now we would still need to reduce emissions. Diesel drivers need to change their behaviour as much as anyone else. A carbon tax on fuel makes everyone take into account how much they are using. Of course I expected nothing less from you. Why bother to suggest an alternative when you can just say "no that's dumb"? The big cost of switching is the cost of the car, not the fuel. But you would have people believe that 7 cents per litre is somehow the death knell for diesel cars in Canada.

See the discussion regarding the Green Shift above. It isn't the plan I would have proposed had I started from scratch, but it's the one that is being discussed today in Canada. It's one that has a chance of actually being implemented. My point is that you are simply whining on this forum. It's your right, but don't pretend you are adding anything of value to the discussion. Your idea that the Green Shift is a huge disincentive to the diesel car industry was wrong. Other than that, every time you are asked for a constructive opinion you always respond with "you first". That may have worked on the playground in grade school, but all it shows here is that you have nothing worthwhile to say.

The market is good, up to a point. It isn't perfect though. Economists recognize that there are market failures, where the market does not take into account the true cost of an item. Greenhouse gas emissions are an example of a market failure. The true cost of emitting is not reflected in the market. This is why people all over the world are looking at carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes. It corrects for this market failure. So yes, right now people are modifying their behaviour due to higher gas prices. Depending on price fluctuations though, the behaviour will change. We also have other fuels that emit greenhouse gases and the best way to ensure that the market actually accounts for that is to put a price on the emissions from all sources. Doing nothing would not correct the market failure. Your point about gas prices and driving behaviour is probably one of the main reasons why the Green Shift plan turns the excise tax into a carbon tax. At the end of four years the Green Shift would have a complete plan in place, taxing all carbon emissions equally. Correcting the market failure. At that point the market takes over. So yes, gotta love that free market.

Good news: no more talk from you about huge disincentives. Bad news: still no attempt at proposing a feasible alternative. Would it be good to have a higher tax on gas (than it is now) to reduce emissions? Yes. Would it be politically feasible right now by any party? Doubtful. Better to introduce a plan slowly than to sell a plan that no one will vote for. A plan that is phased in over four years is better than a plan that will never get implemented ever. And the best part about this particular plan is that after four years it treats all carbon emissions equally. Now I know you want to go off again about a particular technology. But the point of a carbon tax is to tax carbon dioxide emissions, not focus on a particular technology. If you want to get people buying a particular technology then suggest rebates for purchasing that technology (i.e. the car itself, not the fuel). Your knee jerk partisan reaction has blinded you to the fact that there are better ways to reach the goal of lowered emissions than naysaying every plan that comes out. You aren't selling anything worth buying. At any price. Do you always blindly criticize without offering anything constructive? Do you always insist on measures that would be practically impossible to achieve?

So the only present alternative to driving a gas vehicle is a diesel vehicle? I guess public transit, bicycles and your own two feet don't count then? Car pooling apparently isn't an option either. Don't get me wrong, some of these alternatives are not available for many people who have to commute longer distances to work where public transit is unavailable, but to assume that you can only drive a gas car or drive a diesel car is ridiculous. Part of the problem is the mentality that thinks there is no cost to things like driving two blocks to the store to pick up a bag of milk. Why not walk? Little things like this can have a large effect. Interesting though that you have yet to comment on the math that shows your disincentive to switch to diesel is quite low. Interesting that you really have not made any suggestions for a politically and economically feasible plan of your own.

That's not really what a carbon tax is about though. It isn't a tax to bring about technological innovation. The problem comes down to the fact that we need to start reducing emissions immediately. We can't wait until a new technology appears. More importantly, our behaviour has to change. We can't keep thinking that we can consume whatever we want without affecting the environment. A carbon tax will affect behaviour. While it may also increase the incentive to invest in technological innovation I don't see that as its main function.

Blah blah. I haven't ignored that at all (you may want to go back and read my last post to see that). You seem to think that if you can show a diesel car will emit less carbon dioxide in a year than a gas car then the obvious conclusion is that we should not have a carbon tax such as the current one (EDIT: such as the current one suggested in the Green Shift). One does not equate to the other. First, the plan will reduce emissions by getting people to use less of what is taxed. So not disingenuous or misleading. (FYI ingenuous means innocent or unsuspecting, straightforward or sincere. But you probably already knew that since you are an expert on everything.) Second, no one in the world is proposing any emissions reduction scheme that would immediately tax or limit all carbon sources at a cost that accurately reflects the true cost of these emissions. (Disclaimer: no one who wants to have an economy left after the plan is implemented.) So where do we begin? The best way to implement a tax on greenhouse gas emissions is to start slowly and build up the price until it reaches an appropriate level. If the actual tax on gas does not change for the first four years, so be it. At least after four years there will be a carbon tax that covers all of those fuels at the same price per tonne of emissions. It will be a system that treats all carbon dioxide emissions equally. Oh I see. Your solution to greenhouse gas emissions is to say "your plan sucks". Maybe you should "have the guts" to propose something real (and feasible). The Green Shift is not perfect. But it's better than your preferred "solution" of screaming at everyone who suggests a real plan, "your plan doesn't do what I think it should". By using less of what they do have. Not everyone can afford a new car every year. While I haven't seen your statistics, I'm guessing what you mean to say is that 50% of new car sales in Europe are diesels. That is not even remotely the same as saying 50% of Europeans are using diesels. (Feel free to link to a stat that shows that Europeans are using 50% diesels.) As long as they are the ones making the decision and not you. Don't you see how illogical your position is? What you are saying is that, before a carbon tax, a person will do the math and calculate how much diesel they will use in a year compared to gasoline (based on price per litre and mileage) and see that they will save $100 (for example). Then, after a carbon tax, the person will do the same math (using price per litre and mileage) and see that they will save $75 (for example). Now according to you they will say, "Screw that, I don't care that I'd still be saving money. I'm sticking with gas because I wanted to save $100. Since I can't save $100 I'm going to lose $75." WHO DOES THAT? You have taken a mole hill and turned it into one big, partisan, illogical mountain. Do I own one what? Oh, do you mean do I own a diesel car? No, I don't. Does that make me a bad person? Can I no longer comment about emissions reduction plans because of that? Oh... wait... that's right. I don't own a car of any type. If I were you I would probably go on a belligerent rant at this point. Maybe even point out how unintelligent everyone else is. Except that I can realize that the question is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Incidentally, yes, I do say that the incentive would still be there. So does the math. Using your 2004 numbers for the Jettas a 7 cents per litre carbon tax on diesel would reduce the savings between diesel and gas by 17%. In order to eliminate the savings the carbon tax would have to be over five times higher (41 cents per litre). Saving money is saving money. You have done nothing to show otherwise. So? So you are imprecise in both your use of language and the arguments you make. You are unclear with some of the things you write and then become belligerent when people point out that what you have written is not accurate. Your arguments sometimes sound good, until others realize that this huge disincentive you are talking about does not exist. Your argument contradicts itself by saying that people are currently able to rationalize switching to diesel despite a higher price per litre at the pump, but that as soon as a carbon tax is introduced they will be unable to make that same rationalization. You attempt to belittle others unnecessarily. And all this time you have yet to offer anything worthwhile as an alternative to the flaws you see in the current plan. Not quite. Your approach of do nothing will help nothing. The Green Shift will at least give an incentive to reduce emissions on the fuels it does tax. Using the numbers from my example above, you definitely seem like the type to throw away $75 just because you weren't able to get $100. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Congratulations on being irrational.

By taxing carbon content of fuel you are taxing carbon dioxide emissions because when you burn that fuel that carbon becomes carbon dioxide. Which is why people can measure how many kilograms of carbon dioxide a litre of fuel will emit. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT TECHNOLOGY BURNS THE FUEL - THAT FUEL WILL EMIT THE SAME AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE PER LITRE. This is the point you continually ignore and or confuse with gas mileage. You continue to talk about a specific technology - diesel cars versus gasoline cars. And as I have already said, driving a diesel car will emit less carbon dioxide over a year. But a REAL plan to reduce emissions will take into account ALL emissions from ALL sources. It is not enough to look at specific technologies. Even if all people began driving diesels right now that would not do enough to reduce emissions. Providing an incentive for all drivers to drive less is a valid goal to begin reducing emissions. Again... no one was arguing otherwise. Why do you feel the need to argue with every sentence, even if it agrees with your point? Airy fairy? Tax fairness? All I said was that people who drive diesel cars will pay less carbon tax per year than those who drive gasoline cars. That has nothing to do with tax fairness. And it's not airy fairy at all. It is concrete fact. Your own numbers show that. Oh are you? And what exactly was your plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? So far all I've heard from you is "don't put a carbon tax on diesel". That does nothing to reduce emissions from diesel drivers and does nothing to encourage people to switch to diesel above and beyond the encouragement that people already have under the status quo. My vote goes to the person who wants to reduce all emissions by making all emissions more expensive, not the person who wants to subsidize a particular industry. Then let me be more clear since you aren't keeping up. Under the proposed carbon tax diesel usage per year driving your diesel Jetta would be cheaper than gasoline usage per year driving your gasoline Jetta. The price per litre of diesel is currently more expensive than gasoline's price per litre and would remain so under a carbon tax. Here is the problem with your position that a carbon tax will prevent people from changing to a diesel car: 1. People must be able to afford the diesel car irrespective of prices at the pump. This limits the number of people who can switch. So right away your problem does not impact a number of Canadians since they can't switch anyway. 2. The price of diesel per litre (at the pump) is currently more than the price of gasoline per litre. The people who would switch to diesel right now will do the math to see that overall, including gas mileage, their costs on fuel will be less if they use diesel. There will be people who will NOT switch right now because the price of diesel is higher per litre than gasoline; these people are NOT doing the math including the gas mileage. 3. The ONLY difference that a carbon tax would make is that the price at the pump would be 7 cents more at the end of the fourth year. The people who would switch to diesel in that year will STILL do the math to see that diesel, including gas mileage, is cheaper. The only people who will NOT switch because of the carbon tax are the people who would have switched before (i.e. they WILL do the math including gas mileage), but will not switch because of the 7 cents per litre carbon tax. What you are saying is that these people will do the math, see that diesel is cheaper when you include gas mileage, and then NOT switch just because the price at the pump is 7 cents higher. That makes NO sense. If they were going to do the math before, then they will do the math again. And rational people will pick the cheaper option both times. And both times the answer will be diesel. A carbon tax may reduce the incentive, but the incentive is still there. Taxing something will change how people behave with respect to that something. If emitting carbon dioxide costs something then people will act to emit less carbon dioxide. And of course they care about more than the price at the pump. Otherwise people would not switch to diesel RIGHT NOW. Without a carbon tax. Yet people do switch. Amazing. What is even more amazing is that you said that yourself in the same post: Of course that sentence makes no sense unless you add the words "per litre" at the end. In their current form diesel cars may be better than the current equivalent gasoline cars, but you may want to rethink your use of VW as the poster boy for corporate climate change responsibility. See here. Actually we both know that even under a carbon tax these cars will be more cost effective for people. What is it you know that changes that basic math? That goes both ways. And yet your "don't do anything, keep business as usual" approach certainly isn't going to do anything to reduce emissions. A carbon tax may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.

You have constantly rejected the statement that different fuels emit different levels of carbon and therefore different fuels have different efficiencies with respect to carbon emissions. You do this by continually shifting the argument. No one is arguing that technologies which emit more carbon are more efficient with respect to emissions. I was talking about the fuel. And fuel does not equate to technology no matter how much you would like it to. Neither my statement nor your statement is contentious. I have no idea why you keep trying to turn what I am saying into something else unless it is just so that you can make yourself feel better by arguing against it and calling everyone else stupid. Yeah, I've already said long ago that people who drive diesel cars will pay less carbon tax per year than gas drivers. (Obviously this is because less carbon dioxide is emitted over the year.) So why do you think we are arguing that? I say that the tax is on all of the fuels because they all emit carbon, diesel included, and you continue to harp about cars. We are talking about two different things. All the grade three math in the world can't help you if you refuse to engage with what people are actually saying. Which is why the figures are given in kg of carbon dioxide PER LITRE. That way you can compare fuels without this tiresome debate about gas mileage (which has nothing to do with the fuel itself). I am not arguing about the numbers for the Jetta. Perhaps that is over your head. You talked about the numbers I quoted regarding kg of carbon dioxide emitted per litre of fuel burned. Except you called it something else. I simply pointed that out. But by all means bring up your Jetta numbers rather than read the headings on the chart. That is because a carbon tax is concerned about the source of carbon emissions, not how you get the carbon emissions. People who drive diesel cars will still pay less than people who drive gas cars - that does not change. But taxing all fuels means that those who are already driving with those fuels will hopefully cut down. This means less carbon emissions. Now you seem to be all concerned about the tax discouraging people from changing from gas to diesel. Well, since diesel will still be cheaper than gas, there is still an incentive to switch. The people who do the math now will still do the math after the tax is introduced. People who do not do the math and simply look at the pump price will not switch. But since the pump price for diesel is higher right now, they were never going to switch whether the carbon tax was introduced or not. You also are ignoring the obvious question of how many people could actually afford to go out and buy a new Jetta (or other diesel car)? Here is the really basic argument: 1. Taxing all fuels provides an incentive for all users of all fuels to use less and reduce emissions. Not taxing diesel means diesel drivers have no incentive to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. 2. To find the number of people who will not switch to diesel because of the carbon tax you must take the number of people who will switch right now and find the number of people within that group who will change their mind about switching because they consider the price of diesel at the pump to be too high compared to gas. Your position is logically inconsistent. The price of diesel at the pump is already higher than gas so these people would still do the math, see that diesel was cheaper in terms of the carbon tax, and continue to switch. You might know something. It's hard to tell though. Instead of reading what people are writing you constantly return to your Jetta numbers or talk about technologies when I am talking about fuel. Your position in its basic form is also not entirely logical.

Yes, the boogeyman is quite scary. Why examine with an open mind when it is so much easier to say "this plan is total crap because the Liberals did not scrap the GST in 1993"? Yeah, I don't really see how he is sending mixed messages. He didn't say enough to give a mixed message. What exactly is the message you think he is sending? And how does it contradict something else? All he said was that "'the vast majority' of Canadians will find the tax breaks included in the plan will outweigh the extra costs incurred by higher energy prices". The plan is supposed to be revenue neutral so if a vast majority of Canadians save a bit of money that will mean that a few Canadians will lose a (larger) amount of money. Given that all of the tax cuts are aimed at the lower brackets it will probably be Canadians with substantially higher incomes that will make up the difference and make the plan revenue neutral. So when Dion says it is simple you'll quote him, but not when he says anything else? Look, this may come as a surprise to you, but ALL political parties oversell their glorious plans. The Green Shift is simple in one respect, it's basic premise: tax all carbon and compensate individuals with income tax cuts. But I don't think all of the mechanics are simple in the same way that the mechanics behind saying "we're going to give people a $1200 child tax benefit" is not simple. Implementing both of those things takes effort and planning even though the basic premises are quite simple. I'm not so concerned with the "look how amazing our plan is" type of statements. Everyone makes them. I'd rather look at the plan. And the Conservative Party way. And the NDP way. And the... well, you get the idea.

"Good Lord" indeed. What a sad attempt. During Mulroney's term the Conservatives introduced the GST at a certain rate. During Harper's term the Conservatives lowered the GST rate. Oooooo what a shell game! Oh wait... priorities change over time. Particularly when someone new is leading the party. Nothing in that statement is bad policy per se. This may surprise you, but regressive taxes have their uses. Not to mention the fact that the Green Shift's planned changes to the income tax system actually make that tax more progressive (despite the fact that you phrased your sentence to indicate that the plan made income taxes more unfair). The unfortunate fact is that if you are going to have any type of carbon tax or carbon trading it will be regressive. OK. Again, you imply a sinister motive to the carbon tax plan. An implication not supported by anything. An economist you say?!? One whole economist?!? Gee, that proves your point. Economics is not an exact science. On any complex issue, and this is complex, there will always be multiple economists on either side of that issue. On both sides there will be people who are reputable and know their stuff. But there is room in economics for disagreement. So saying that one guy thinks something does not prove that an economic plan is a "sham". Who said it was simple? It isn't. The specific details will need to be worked out. I'm sure the system will need to be tuned over the first few years. Quite frankly we've had an income tax system for decades and it is constantly tuned and adjusted for various reasons. While it may be that the Liberals should have done a better job of educating and prepping their MPs, having some MPs get details wrong does not make the plan a sham. And no, not every single MP will be involved in implementing the program. Just like every single Conservative MP was not involved in the tax benefits introduced over the last two years. I have no doubt that if you asked all of the Conservative caucus how much money a family can get out of the (for example) sports tax benefit for kids, there would be more than a few who either wouldn't know at all or would get the answer wrong.

How exactly does that make it a scam? Taxing different things will have different effects on a society. It lowers the tax on income and raises a tax on carbon. Different things are taxed and the behaviour of Canadians will change because of that simple fact. If so, many of the arguments against the plan were devised on the other side of that same fishing pond.

I've asked the question before, but it hasn't been answered: wasn't the point of the apology that the immigration laws at the time were racist? People keep saying "they arrived illegally" but the whole point was that the only reason they were illegal was because of their race.

OK... that is one way to look at it. But if they looked at all of the evidence they have and found no evidence of wrongdoing then what they are saying is, to the best of their knowledge, no other parties engaged in that conduct. In the same way that when the RCMP says they are not going to continue an investigation into the Cadman affair they are saying that, to the best of their knowledge, there is not enough evidence to continue. So Elections Canada did say that the other parties have not engaged in this behaviour. And of course if new evidence comes to light they can say they made a mistake. Just like how the RCMP can say they made a mistake if new evidence comes to light about the alleged bribe to Cadman. You can spin both of those situations in different directions if you want, but the fact remains that Elections Canada continues to say that it has no proof that other parties engaged in this conduct. Different people doing the initial investigation does not mean there is no uniform standard. Generally these institutions have policies that can be applied. Whether or not a policy exists, allegations of this sort go up the chain of command. To someone who is in the position to tell the people looking at the other parties to look for the same info. Which is what happened when the issue got to the Chief Electoral Officer. They don't leave the interpretation of the laws up to the individuals without ensuring that they are all on the same page. Take Revenue Canada as an example. Do you really think that only one person can conduct all of the tax audits in Canada in order to get a standard interpretation? I think it is because they are only accusing the Conservatives of engaging in the scheme during the 2006 election. They reviewed all evidence that they had. Just like Elections Canada in this debacle. While some of what is said against the Conservative Party certainly amounts to a smear campaign, most of the smearing is being done by the Conservative Party. They have attempted to smear Elections Canada as well as the opposition parties.

Are you sure? Maybe you canvassed for the Liberals at the same time that the NDP came to power. A lot of weird stuff was apparently happening in that "election".