stevoh

The conservative environmental plan, "turning the corner", is described in detail here: http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=75038EBC-1 I had always believed (and correct me if I am wrong) that the conservatives have been highly critical of Kyoto, and particularly of the concept of "carbon offsets". I was suprised to read that the conservatives plan to use just such as scheme as a "compliance mechanism" for their emissions reduction targets. From here: http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/virage-corner/2008-03/541_eng.htm Elaboration of April 2007 regulatory framework: compliance mechanisms *cue sound of turntable needle dragging across record followed by silence* The conservative plan allows companies to use their KYOTO credits? What? The very Kyoto they dismissed outright? The only way a company should see tax breaks or other incentives to invest in green technology is to do that emissions reduction themselves. Carbon offsets too easily allow polluters to continue doing business as usual, and, if cost analysis reveals that buying carbon credits is cheaper than making emissions improvements, then the only result of such a scheme is that the end user pays more.

I read the green shift plan on the website, and have understood the reasons behind the latest farming cost changes (don't increase costs of food supply). I also haven't seen an inconsistency in his message. If you have something specific that is confusing, define it here, and maybe we can clear it up.

Considering the people are the end users who will bear the extra cost, seems like the best idea to me. Leave it to a right winger to call a liberal tax cut "income redistribution". I don't see conservative based corporate tax cuts distributed evenly among all businesses either. Maybe we should just call conservatives "corporate socialists" due to THEIR income redistrubution efforts. A tax cut is a tax cut. All tax increases/cuts are income redistrubution.

How can anyone tell all of America that the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is abstinence when that approach has failed within her own family? Can anyone really be a positive role model for conservative values when her own daughter is pregnant out of wedlock? Is she really just another "do as I say, not as I do" politician?

So far, his pick has good sides and bad sides (for McCain). Good Side: - McCain has been accused of representing the same old government as Bush represents. The choice of this woman shows a distinct difference. - So far, all of the focus has been on the democratic nomination due to history being made. Now both parties are making history "stealing some of Obama's thunder", as it were. - I highly doubt die hard Hilary supporters will support a ardent pro-lifer, but overall, this VP choice may have more appeal to female voters than a more typical choice. - No-one has heard of her (no baggage). Bad Side: - McCains main point against Obama is lack of experience. He then chooses a VP, that also lacks experience, removing a major talking point. - He risks alientating some of his base that may have an issue with a woman being president. - She is currently involved in a potential scandal around a potentially politically influenced firing. - No-one has heard of her (no reputation). It seems that McCain has given up some ground on his "More experience" platform in order to gain some ground on the "I am different than GWB" platform. Will be interesting to see how the events of this week influence voters.

Its a good idea for Canada to have access to and patrol the arctic waters regardless of your political standing. If you are right wing it is in order to protect our assets, such as oil, gas, etc. If you are left wing it is in order to protect our assets, such as wildlife, environment, etc. If we do nothing, regardless of your political affiliation, things will start happening in the Arctic that Canadians don't approve of.

Van Gogh was supported by his brother, without that support, we would never have created his art. Real talent does not necessarily ensure financial success. I agree with this statement: By your definition, good art is art that sells. Unfortunately, many artists true genius is not recognized until after they are dead. Bit late for funding at that point. Art funding should be based on a known set of criteria, if you meet those criteria, then you get funding if funding is available.

Costco's target market is different. They are mostly bulk buying stores, especially for food and cleaning supplies. So if you need 5 gallons of Salsa, Costco is your place. However, if you want to buy the regular 8 ounce jar of salsa for cheap, then Walmart is the place. Costco has decided, and I agree, that cutting back on staff wages and benefits is one of the things they are NOT willing to do in an effort to reduce final costs to the consumer. Walmart has. Increase Walmarts costs in any way, including raising wages, and that money has to come from somewhere.

When your company's main reason for attracting business is simply low prices, you have to do everything you can to keep those prices lower than everyone else. Including paying staff less. I am not saying whether I support or oppose that decision, but fact is, if Unions succeed in getting into Walmart, and salaries go up, then the prices would have to go up as well. Would that be the end of Walmart? They certainly are fighting it like it would.

Original Story From Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html Walmarts Denial in Huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/2...-mart-politics/ Of course, each has their own side of the story, but even walmart admits (about the Obama supported union bill):

Walmart has been advising their American store employees not to vote Democrat because Obama plans to make it easier to form Unions. Walmart is anti-union, no doubt. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

The conservative energy plan is called "turning the corner" and it has lots of details associated, some of which are in my posts in this thread. Here is a link: http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=75038EBC-1

Yes, the tax cuts may not offset the costs of energy increases for some people, but the conservative plan? Increase energy costs to Canadians with no tax cuts. Is that an improvement?

The increased costs of fossil fuel based energy will not generate new cheaper sources. It will make the new sources more and more cost effective as the cost of fossil fuel based sources continues to rise. And, as you know, there is lots of room for improvement on current technologies, solar is only 20% efficient right now. So, while I don't believe there is going to be any "magic", I do believe that the cost of alternative energy sources is going to decline. Our living costs are going to increase anyway, no matter if a Green Shift or other government venture adds to that cost (4 billion in alberta to "green" initiatives, that would also make a nice tax Albertan tax break of over 1000 dollars each). At least with green shift we see some return in the form of tax breaks from that increasing cost. With market sources, we simply swallow the increase as we have no choice. I do feel for people like you, who are exhasperated at the increasing cost and really don't see any cost effective way of reducing energy bills. My family has managed to make quite a few changes over the last year or so, mostly in transportation costs. We are very close to hitting a point where we will not be able to make any further cutbacks to cut down our energy bill. But this situation was not created by the government, it was created by energy companies and market demand. How do you feel about this quote: This is the conservatives "turning the corner" plan. It does not include tax breaks for Canadians. It will result in increased energy prices. Is that a better solution?

I am countering this claim: This claim states that we will only innovate when a resource is almost gone (as opposed to government attempts to increase price having that effect). That is the statement that I am refuting. In other words, rather than following the course of action outlined above, use less and less until a resource is almost gone, we will instead start using alternatives like hydro, solar, wind, etc as they become financially affordable by comparison. This hasn't happened yet. But as prices of fossil fuels increase, and renewable technologies improve (large scale solar is currently only about 20% efficient, but you knew that, lots of room for improvement), we will eventually hit that point. So, we will not get to the point where we are using the minimum amount necessary until the resource is almost gone, we will instead reach a point where the cost of energy generation through oil consumption is higher than other alternatives. Whether the increase is market or regulation based.

That doesn't counter the fact that markets are manipulated and are not entirely self policing. As you have yourself stated, the difference is modest. The global energy price increases are having far more influence than a carbon tax will. My point was that the price increase counts, not the source of the price increase.

Market forces are entirely self policing? Goverment has to step in all the time to ensure monopolies, price fixing and all manner of other attempts to undermine the free market and establish singular product dominance are prevented. Smuggling occurs because you can purchase one product in one area, and sell it at a much higher price in another area. It is "smuggled" because their are either laws or taxes that prevent straight transferal, or the product is illegal. It doesn't matter if the reason for the price difference is government regulation, the legality of the product (a subset of government regulations), or other market forces (ie. produced locally). Fraud and political manipulation are consistently used to attempt to manipulate market forces as well, think pork barrel politics. You either need a consumer base for a product set that cannot be moved (ie, energy providers to homes) or you would need regulation (ie, taxes) on any imports of the product from outside of the area to maintain the objectives of the policy. If China artifically increased the price of their energy sources, then the same outcome would have been achieved. The source of the increase doesn't matter. The increase itself does.

One reason this argument falls apart is choice. As one resource becomes scarce, its cost rises. If our only choice to generated energy was oil, then yes, over time, we would use that resource more and more efficiently as we are forced to. However, we have multiple energy generation choices. And the reason we (most of us) have historically chosen one choice over another is simply cost. As the cost of one rises, other alternatives become more attractive. Technological innovation is encouraged as cost analysis reveals new opportunities in the market for the adaptation of new energy sources. As long as we have multiple choices for energy generation, we will never get to that "desperate" final stage where one specific resouce is almost gone. We will have already changed. Another reason this argument falls apart is the stated correlation between artificially increasing prices by government and innovation. This implies that market forces on prices will encourage innovation, as we know they do. But government mandated ones won't. However, the market does not typically care WHY a price has increased, it only cares that it HAS. Consumer choice is dictated by final product cost, not by how that cost was generated. So, there is no difference between market forces soley encouraging innovation, or a combination of government AND market forces encouraging that innovation, as the costs rise in both cases. It doesn't matter if the increase in costs comes from market sources, or government sources. The increase in costs alone is enough to make innovation in alternatives or improving those alternatives a worthwhile investement.

Well, to me, the carbon tax accelerates a process that is occuring already, that is, fossil fuels becoming more expensive making non carbon based fuel sources a more attractive alternative. As technology improves and becomes more efficient/cheaper there will come a "tipping point", where non-carbon based energy sources become financially attractive alternatives. That is when we will transition from people buying energy efficient products for political/environmental beliefs to financial reasons. I am hoping that that change will happen in my lifetime. True, the amount of effect that the carbon tax is going to have on energy prices, in most cases, is not enough to make the investment in an energy efficient appliance pay for itself over time. However, if you have to replace one anyway, then these higher energy prices should make efficiency a higher priority. And that is the whole point, increase the importance of the efficiency of the product. The carbon tax isn't the whole solution, it is a small part of the equation that will eventually make energy efficiency a primary product purchase consideration, rather than a "feel good" one.

Totally interesting post. I mean, there is no point getting into all kinds of details, we stand on two very different sides of the environmental fence. But I enjoy the insight none the less. This is particularly fascinating: Will speak more to this later.

Right now, as we speak, I am peddling a small stationary bicycle that generates sufficient energy to both power my computer, and to power the small flickering twisty light I have on the ceiling of my yurt. I have tossed my sandles off and am resting my bamboo socked feet on the reclaimed wood of my desk. I have some left over cus-cus and salmon salad in the fridge, I think I will smoke a giant joint and tuck into that tasty tucker right now.

You have effectively debated (once I got past the name calling and decided to ignore it) and made me change my mind about the cost of replacing appliances. I think the tax break will help buy new appliances for some of us (like me), but for some, you will have to rely on your income source if they need replacing. Not sure where you work, but so far, my raises have been well above the inflation rate. Isn't it less than 3%? Thats a pretty lousy raise. People who earn less than you are further ahead than you? In that case I would reduce your income to the lowest level and start spending all that extra cash. I would suggest that if a budget is tight due to energy costs, then the increases in the market prices(home heating oil especially) have far more to do with your tight finances than the carbon tax will. Where would the money come from to make up for the GST loss?

I agree with this. While I am not opposed to a carbon tax, I view it as an acceleration of what is already happening with energy prices, the long term solution to this issue is cost viable alternatives. Doesn't that have more to do with the existing cost of energy than the increase?

Nah, that was an asinine response to an equally asinine post.

First off, good for you for reducing your energy consumption, these days its a good idea regardless of what new taxes may be coming our way. Secondly, have you taken a look at the real impact of the energy changes, ie, your tax break in correspondence to the increase in energy bills? It might not be as bad as you think. And finally what would you do otherwise to encourage the following? 1. reduce consumption of carbon producing fuels. 2. increase use of renewable energy sources.