Are the Liberals damaging Green party chances...?

[Savant]

I was having an interesting discussion with a friend that is a Green party supporter, and she was bemoaning the Liberal's 'Green Shift' plan. However, she was annoyed not because she is against action on the environment, but because the Liberals are making such a mess of it that she worries it may turn people off from the Green party by association. (Since the Liberal 'Green Shift' plan is basically ripped from the Green party playbook with things tweaked to further their agenda.)

I can't help but wonder if my friend has a point. Do the Liberals risk making people associate 'green' with 'cash grab'...? Even though the Green party has a different platform than the Liberals, do they risk being seen as 'guilty by association' with respect to their 'green tax shift'...?

With all the gains the Green party has made of late, does the Green party risk becoming collateral damage as Canadians choose whether they want to embark on the largest tax hike in Canadian history?

[M.Dancer]

The Greens have made gains? What does that mean? The number of people who view tham as fringe one issue party with no chance of ever being taken seriously is down a 1/10th of a point?

[jdobbin]

I can't help but wonder if my friend has a point. Do the Liberals risk making people associate 'green' with 'cash grab'...? Even though the Green party has a different platform than the Liberals, do they risk being seen as 'guilty by association' with respect to their 'green tax shift'...?

When the CBC political panel assessed the last session, they said both the Greens and the NDP were hurt by the Liberals on the green program. Moreover, they noted that the Tories were no longer talking about their program at all and pulled Baird from ciculation.

[Vancouver King]

Your Green friend has good cause to be concerned. Despite savaging by the PM and a campaign of focused msm commercials, the available evidence suggests, on balance, Dion's Green Shift has impressed more voters than it's alienated.

In so far as the Green Party can be defined as a single-issue organization, it would appear the Liberal success allows them to drain some of it's soft, climate-related support. Whatever the damage to the Green Party save any pity of this type for the Conservatives: devoid of any meaningful green policy when climate change is THE penultimate issue of our times. It must be karma that their only clearly defined policy area - law & order - has now been neutered by a report showing crime down substantially.

[Riverwind]

devoid of any meaningful green policy when climate change is THE penultimate issue of our times.

Why? Because a bunch of scientists with computer models that have never been proven accurate say the end of the world is coming? Temperatures have flat-lined in the last decade and the only explaination that the warmers have is "trust us it will start warming again soon".

The liberal plan is nothing more than a redisitribution of tax dollars from the West to Quebec and from the middle class to the poor.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Why? Because a bunch of scientists with computer models that have never been proven accurate say the end of the world is coming? Temperatures have flat-lined in the last decade and the only explaination that the warmers have is "trust us it will start warming again soon".

It is hard to give credence to some of these critics who still argue there is no proof smoking is bad for you.

The liberal plan is nothing more than a redisitribution of tax dollars from the West to Quebec and from the middle class to the poor.

Actually, it is a tax on carbon.

[Riverwind]

It is hard to give credence to some of these critics who still argue there is no proof smoking is bad for you.

Your strawmen are getting really silly but no matter how many times you repeat them you cannot avoid the fact that the climate models have yet to demonstrate that they have any skill when it comes to forecasting climate trends.

[jdobbin]

Your strawmen are getting really silly but no matter how many times you repeat them you cannot avoid the fact that the climate models have yet to demonstrate that they have any skill when it comes to forecasting climate trends.

You disagree that the same people who say there is no proof that smoking is bad for you are the same people often denying global warming? That's kind of silly.

[Riverwind]

-

Edited July 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

You disagree that the same people who say there is no proof that smoking is bad for you are the same people often denying global warming? That's kind of silly.

It is silly because it has no bering on whether or not the claims regarding AGW are true or not. There are many people who are skeptical of AGW that have absolutely no connections to tabacco/oil/coal interests. Attempts to dismiss the entire argument because a couple of advocates may have some dubious connection is not only silly - it is pathetic. Unfortunately, ad hominum attacks seem to be the only thing that AGW zealots are capable of. Edited July 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

It is silly because it has no bering on whether or not the claims regarding AGW are true or not. There are many people who are skeptical of AGW that have absolutely no connections to tabacco/oil/coal interests. Attempts to dismiss the entire argument because a couple of advocates may have some dubious connection is not only silly - it is pathetic. Unfortunately, ad hominum attacks seem to be the only thing that AGW zealots are capable of.

Just because you think it is silly doesn't mean it isn't true. We see a very large group of professional lobbyists who turn up over and over again on issues like climate change, etc.

What is pathetic is the single issue lobbyists who are vocal against global warming and don't say a peep against conservatives. It is all Al Gore or Stephane Dion all the time. Talk about ad hominum attacks. Why is there is no railing against Harper here or an embarked on an ethanol policy that is raising food prices $450 million in Canada?

It is hard to take seriously the lobby here when they blunt their criticism of the present government and attack Dion daily.

And here is that word zealot used again. This is what we see from global warming denials associated with conservatives who don't want to say a peep about conservatives. It is silly, pathetic and transparent.

[Savant]

While the topic is getting a bit off, let me offer a couple links to those who think that scientists are united behind theories surrounding climate change.

Global Warming Petition Project

31,072 American scientists have signed this petition rejecting Kyoto, including 9,021 with PhDs

Friends of Science

"Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change."

[jdobbin]

While the topic is getting a bit off, let me offer a couple links to those who think that scientists are united behind theories surrounding climate change.

Global Warming Petition Project

31,072 American scientists have signed this petition rejecting Kyoto, including 9,021 with PhDs

Friends of Science

"Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change."

This was countered by this:

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs.../ten-myths.html

[Riverwind]

There is no scientific consensus

The bulk IPCC report was authored by no more than 30-50 scientists. Access to information has now given us access to the review comments for IPCC WG1 which tell us that the majority of reviewers made no comments at all and that the comments of reviewers who disagreed with the position of the document author were ignored.

There is no scientific consensus American scientists don't buy it - 19,000 signed a petition against the IPCC's views and the need for the Kyoto Protocol

There were two petitions projects. The first had issues because the response vastly exceeded the organizers expectations the second one had a more rigorous vetting process and has 31,072 American scientists. See http://www.petitionproject.org/

This page deals with the falsehoods spread by alarmists: http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/..._Questions.html

This is all within natural variability

The correct answer is yes it is within natrual variability. The studies used by alarmists to make the claim that the current warming is unusual have serious mathematical problems and provide no useful insight into historical temperatures. Studies which use reliable statistical methods on reliable temperature proxies show that over the last 10000 years the temperature has frequently changed by more than a 1degC over 100 years.

It won't affect Canada much - and definitely not in my lifetime

Well according to the a recent vulnerability Canada is the best place to be if climate change actually occurs: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...nge-860001.html

A few degrees more will be really nice - especially for plants!

There is are large volume of peer reviewed research that not only shows the more CO2 is generally good for plants but also so shows that when problems occur they can be addressed by changing agricultural practices or natural adaptation.

The scientific models aren't very good at projecting the future

This is pure BS. The models are no more accurate than a carnival astrologer and get more things wrong than they get right. The hind casts shown in the link mean nothing because the models are tuned to match the past data. The fact that different models produce widely different predictions of the future even when the all match the past is evidence of this tuning process.

The latest batch of models started predictions in 2001. A statistical analysis of the data collected since then shows that it is 95% likely that the models over predict the warming that is occurring.

Carbon Dioxide levels are not strongly related to temperature - how could they in such trace amounts?

The ice core records only show that rising temperatures *cause* the amount of CO2 to rise. There is no empirical evidence that shows conclusively the amount of warming that CO2 can cause. There is no experiment evidence that demonstrates that the numbers produced by the climate models have any connection to reality.

Satellite measurements have not shown the trends

The satellite meaurements have only been around for 30 years. For the first 20 years the temperatures were basically flat followed by a jump in 1998. After that the temperatures have been basically flat. More importantly, the temperatures in the upper troposphere which were supposed to warmer much faster than the surface have not warmed. This is more evidence that tells us the models are likely wrong.

The observed warming is all due to solar radiation variability, not human activity

We don't know enough about the sun to make any claims regarding its effect on climate. We know that climate has changed frequently in the past and that it was likely the result of the sun yet know one knows how the sun could have caused the observed effects.

Scientists are just exaggerating in order to get more funding

Cognative dissonance is an amazing thing. Scientists may not conciously decide to push AGW to get funding but they depend on governments for fund and governments give more funding to things that they think are problems. Therefore all scientists have a financial incentive to exagrarrate the seriousness of the probelm in order to ensure funding. Edited July 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[Visionseeker]

The Green Party is nothing more than a parking lot for voters who will eventually opt for the Bloc (in Quebec), the CPC, Liberals or NDP. The CPC is the least likely to benefit. The Liberals play with Green Shift gives them a strong leg up over the NDP in pulling Greens from that lot.

The Greens will not get more than 4 to 5% at the next poll

[jdobbin]

There were two petitions projects. The first had issues because the response vastly exceeded the organizers expectations the second one had a more rigorous vetting process and has 31,072 American scientists. See http://www.petitionproject.org/

We know all about both petitions.

The other is just as phony.

http://www.desmogblog.com/infamous-oregon-...-alive-and-well

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140013

On the February 9 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) The 700 Club, anchor Lee Webb touted a petition he claimed was signed by "more than 17,000 scientists" that "says there is no scientific evidence that greenhouse gasses cause global warming." But the petition Webb cited is more than seven years old and was apparently signed by many people who lack credentials as climate scientists.

Just more right wing nonsense.

The petition was signed by characters from MASH. Um, yeah.

Edited July 21, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

The petition was signed by characters from MASH. Um, yeah.

You really need to read links provided before reponding. It might reduce the chance of looking like an idiot.

From the petition FAQ that I linked to:

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

In other words desmog does not have a clue what it is talking about (which is normal for that blog).

The consensus is a fiction created by political activists who think it will help push their adgenda.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

You really need to read links provided before reponding. It might reduce the chance of looking like an idiot.

Once again there is that the nastiness and insulting response we can expect from the right wing.

From the petition FAQ that I linked to:

In other words desmog does not have a clue what it is talking about (which is normal for that blog).

The consensus is a fiction created by political activists who think it will help push their adgenda.

Media Matters also looked into the matter and indeed there were some MASH characters listed in the petition that were removed. The story was featured in an Associated Press article. It makes the petition highly suspect.

Not to mention the fact that the petition used dubious techniques to get people to sign which the National Academy of Sciences has outlined.

Try to control your insults which are a little over the top at times.

Edited July 21, 2008 by jdobbin

[segnosaur]

Why is there is no railing against Harper here or an embarked on an ethanol policy that is raising food prices $450 million in Canada?

Well, lets see...

A $450 million increase in the price of food will probably mean that I end up paying an extra $15 for my food per year. (Assuming a population of around 30 million with extra costs spread evenly amongst people... granted, children do eat less than adults, but then I did use a lower figure for the population.)

On the other hand, when you look at the Liberal green plan, while I will save approximately $300 in taxes, I'll also have to pay $228-266 more per year for natural gas (from the Liberal green plan), and approximately $200/year on electricity (based on the estimated $1 billion cost to ontario, divided by ~4.5 million households). Thus, as a result of the Liberal green shift, I'll end up paying between $128 and $166 per year. (Lets use $150 as the midway point.) And that's JUST in energy costs. That doesn't include any price increases from products affected by the carbon taxes.

So, what should I complain about more... something that will cost me $15, or something that will cost me $150?

[jdobbin]

Well, lets see...

A $450 million increase in the price of food will probably mean that I end up paying an extra $15 for my food per year. (Assuming a population of around 30 million with extra costs spread evenly amongst people... granted, children do eat less than adults, but then I did use a lower figure for the population.)

The $450 million is just a part of the Tory policy. Their regulatory aspect passes on even higher costs the the consumers. How much? Well, if John Baird will ever speak again on the subject, maybe we'll find out. When the National Post assessed the three approaches of the main parties, the cost of gas alone was estimated to go up by 40 cents a litre.

On the other hand, when you look at the Liberal green plan, while I will save approximately $300 in taxes, I'll also have to pay $228-266 more per year for natural gas (from the Liberal green plan), and approximately $200/year on electricity (based on the estimated $1 billion cost to ontario, divided by ~4.5 million households). Thus, as a result of the Liberal green shift, I'll end up paying between $128 and $166 per year. (Lets use $150 as the midway point.) And that's JUST in energy costs. That doesn't include any price increases from products affected by the carbon taxes.

So, what should I complain about more... something that will cost me $15, or something that will cost me $150?

I don't think I've ever heard a complaint from some on the right wing about ethanol. It certainly doesn't do anything according to many experts on emissions. Essentially, people are paying higher prices as a farm support system.

The $450 million was taken from Fraser study which used what the American figures are and scaled them to Canada.

The World Bank estimated costs are up 75% rather than the 3% to 5% the U.S. uses to estimate the costs. If that is the case, we might be looking at a whole lost more than small change.

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2008/07...071506-sun.html

The decision to turn corn crops into ethanol to fuel cars has pushed global food prices up by 75%, according to a new report.

[madmax]

I was having an interesting discussion with a friend that is a Green party supporter, and she was bemoaning the Liberal's 'Green Shift' plan. However, she was annoyed not because she is against action on the environment, but because the Liberals are making such a mess of it that she worries it may turn people off from the Green party by association. (Since the Liberal 'Green Shift' plan is basically ripped from the Green party playbook with things tweaked to further their agenda.)

I can't help but wonder if my friend has a point. Do the Liberals risk making people associate 'green' with 'cash grab'...? Even though the Green party has a different platform than the Liberals, do they risk being seen as 'guilty by association' with respect to their 'green tax shift'...?

When a party comes out and supports the leader of another political party for Prime Minister before an election, fully endorses the LPC environmental plan without criticism, then it would be expected that people who are turned off of the Liberal Plan will do the same for the GP. The same is true for those who support the LPC plan. If the Leader is endorsed, and the plan is endorsed, then you vote for the LPC. It's a double turnoff of the party and clever move on the LPC part.

With all the gains the Green party has made of late, does the Green party risk becoming collateral damage as Canadians choose whether they want to embark on the largest tax hike in Canadian history?

If the GPs are "collateral" damage, it is deserved. But I think your friend is rushing to judgement. Barely 3% of those polled know or care about the Green Shift. Of those 3% a Majority like it. But in the General Public, this is going to be a losing issue. This will go over as well as the Religious School funding proposal by John Tory in the Ontario Election. Something for Dion to get hit on the head with.

Obviously, hitching your wagon to another political party in hopes of a free tow, is going to come back on you. It is the largest tax grab since the GST, and it looks like it will take two parties to sell it.

Clearly if the program was selling well, your friend would be estatic that the tax is coming through. But since it is not, she appears more worried about her parties stance in the polls.

She can't have it both ways.

The Liberals have chosen a wedge issue. You friend is feeling "the squeeze".

[segnosaur]

The $450 million is just a part of the Tory policy.

Why exactly do you keep labeling this a 'Tory policy'? Its been pointed out to you in the past that the ethanol policy has been supported by members of several parties (including the Federal liberals, and various provincial parties including the Ontario NDP.)

Their regulatory aspect passes on even higher costs the the consumers. How much? Well, if John Baird will ever speak again on the subject, maybe we'll find out.

I always find it ironic how you can both criticize the Conservative policy on energy, and then turn around and complain that they haven't spoken on the subject. Perhaps you should wait until they actually release their policy before condeming it.

When the National Post assessed the three approaches of the main parties, the cost of gas alone was estimated to go up by 40 cents a litre.

Again another ironic/hypocritical statement...

Liberal carbon tax = good since it discourages fossil fuel consumption

Conservative plans increasing gas price = bad, even though supposedly discouraging fuel consumption is a good thing

And before you return to that argument about how the carbon tax would 'replace' the excise tax, remember that at least part of the excise taxes go to highway maintenance/policing/etc. Removing the excise tax means that these items aren't going to be paid for through tax revenue, since the 'carbon tax' is meant to offset the tax cuts.

The World Bank estimated costs are up 75% rather than the 3% to 5% the U.S. uses to estimate the costs. If that is the case, we might be looking at a whole lost more than small change.

First of all, keep in mind that the world bank report has not actually been released... rather hard to debate the merits of a report when you don't actually have access to the report. (And supposedly other reports that look at longer terms don't show quite the cost impacts.)

Secondly, I've already pointed out that its not necessarily the use of 'ethanol' which is the problem. Its the use of crops like corn to produce ethanol. Requiring that fuel contains a certain percentage of ethanol isn't a problem. We should just be more active in finding alternatives to corn or wheat.

Switchgrass has the potential of 20 times the energy yield that corn-derived ethanol does, and can be grown on land that is less suitable for crop production. At the very least we could eliminate any import taxes on foreign produced ethanol (allowing us to import ethanol from sugar cane, which doesn't have the same effect on world food prices.)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-...hanol-than-corn

Brazil has been mandating higher levels of ethanol in its fuel for years, and the price of ethanol there (based on sugar cane) has been competitive with oil even when oil was a fraction of its current price. (And this is done without increasing food prices.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

[Riverwind]

Media Matters also looked into the matter and indeed there were some MASH characters listed in the petition that were removed.

Sigh. The media matters link is from 2006 and only discusses the first list. The second list of 30000 names used a new process designed to prevent those kinds of the problems. I was clear in my first comment that the first list had issues that did not apply to the second list yet you responded with irrelevent critiques of the first list. Edited July 21, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Sigh. The media matters link is from 2006 and only discusses the first list. The second list of 30000 names used a new process designed to prevent those kinds of the problems. I was clear in my first comment that the first list had issues that did not apply to the second list yet you responded with irrelevent critiques of the first list.

It doesn't just discuss the first list. It also discusses the second list and third and the fourth. The petition was featured in an AP story when it appear that names from characters from MASH were appearing on the list. The list also had dead people on it at that time. Many of people with advanced degrees were medical doctors and engineers, not anyone even remotely associated with climate change.

The National Academy of Sciences expressed their anger at the dubious methods used in the second petition. Noah Robinson admitted to AP that he was having problem verifying info on his petition.

Prefessor Seitz said was stupid to copy the NAS format but still sees nothing wrong with a list that included so many other problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

This list is a phony and a fake and the right wing should be embarrassed by it.

[jdobbin]

Why exactly do you keep labeling this a 'Tory policy'? Its been pointed out to you in the past that the ethanol policy has been supported by members of several parties (including the Federal liberals, and various provincial parties including the Ontario NDP.)

I've already pointed out that I think the Liberals are wrong. I don't think the policy in any way helps the environment. I have said the same thing in Manitoba on the NDP policy of forcing the consumer to buy a product that may in fact increase emissions.

I always find it ironic how you can both criticize the Conservative policy on energy, and then turn around and complain that they haven't spoken on the subject. Perhaps you should wait until they actually release their policy before condeming it.

I am criticizing the Harper approach thus far with particular focus on the ethanol issue which they have embraced and which Harper rejects as being inflationary.

I am criticizing the lack of information in regards to their policy direction and what its costs will be.

Again another ironic/hypocritical statement...

Liberal carbon tax = good since it discourages fossil fuel consumption

Conservative plans increasing gas price = bad, even though supposedly discouraging fuel consumption is a good thing

If that was the one and only issue, I might agree. However, my arguments throughout this forum is that the costs associated with their regulatory approach are never detailed or downplayed just as ethanol was.

They criticized the Liberal policy as raising gas prices even when it was shown that there was no increase in the carbon tax on gas. Then they refused to answer questions in regards to their policy direction even as industrial experts indicated it was likely to raise gas prices much higher.

And before you return to that argument about how the carbon tax would 'replace' the excise tax, remember that at least part of the excise taxes go to highway maintenance/policing/etc. Removing the excise tax means that these items aren't going to be paid for through tax revenue, since the 'carbon tax' is meant to offset the tax cuts.

First of all, keep in mind that the world bank report has not actually been released... rather hard to debate the merits of a report when you don't actually have access to the report. (And supposedly other reports that look at longer terms don't show quite the cost impacts.)

The excise tax was going into general revenues and very little if any was used for highway construction. If it was, we would have been seeing $5 billion a year on roads via the federal government. It was why the Tories promised in 2005 to end the excise tax. I wonder what happened to that promise.

Secondly, I've already pointed out that its not necessarily the use of 'ethanol' which is the problem. Its the use of crops like corn to produce ethanol. Requiring that fuel contains a certain percentage of ethanol isn't a problem. We should just be more active in finding alternatives to corn or wheat.

I have pointed that out myself. It is the food for fuel issue I have a problem with.

However, there are plenty of commentators on this forum who think food for fuel ethanol is a great policy. Others who don't believe in global warming don't say anything about this critical policy. Why they remain quiet on a program that is not needed is beyond me.

As far as the World Bank report goes, I do await its release. Its early numbers if true are a startling indication that the 3 to 5% increase in food prices is a serious underestimation.

Edited July 21, 2008 by jdobbin