Are the Liberals damaging Green party chances...?

madmax · July 21, 2008

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.

And some who think food for fuel is a great policy....

......egg on the face for a couple of the boys here.

Riverwind · July 21, 2008

It also discusses the second list and third and the fourth

No it does not. The article is dated 2006 and cannot possibly have anything to say about a list published in 2007.

August1991 · July 21, 2008

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.

The basic problem of the federal Liberal Party is credibility. It has made so many promises and never delivered on them that no one believes a Liberal anymore.

Despite what Dion says, no one really believes him or that the Liberals will impose a carbon tax. (Dobbin doesn't seem to understand his own party or its reputation.)

As to the Greens, they will advocate for the environment but they'll have no seats in Parliament to do it. I think the $1.75 per voter may help them in the next election.

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.

To Ontario and the Maritimes too.

Riverwind, I know that you are a climate change doubter. I take a different view.

jdobbin · July 21, 2008

No it does not. The article is dated 2006 and cannot possibly have anything to say about a list published in 2007.

It is the same list! They are not new lists. It is a continuation of a list that has already been shown to have problems.

Edited July 21, 2008 by jdobbin

Riverwind · July 21, 2008

It is the same list! They are not new lists. It is a continuation of a list that has already been shown to have problems.

If you actually read the link I provided you would have known that statement is completely false.

From the link I provided:

Realizing, from discussions with their scientific colleagues, that this claimed "consensus" does not exist, a group of scientists initiated the Petition Project in early 1998. Thousands of signatures were gathered in a campaign during 1998-1999. Between 1999 and 2007, the list of petition signatories grew gradually, without a special campaign. Between October 2007 and March 2008, a new campaign for signatures was initiated. The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007. The original review article that accompanied the petition effort in 1998-1999 was replaced in October 2007 with a new review incorporating the research literature up to that date.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · July 21, 2008

If you actually read the link I provided you would have known that statement is completely false.
From the link I provided:

Baloney on the statement being false. It is the same list with the same problems no matter how many times it gets signed.

It is the same Exxon backed group that started it, using the same dubious methodology of getting engineers and doctors to sign a list to somehow show they are part of an expert consensus that global warming is not happening.

Total lies and falsehoods from the right wing in trying to prove there is no consensus. The verification method is suspect. The wording remains suspect. The expertise is suspect. It is a total joke and easily dismissed by anyone who is serious about scientific consensus.

Riverwind · July 21, 2008

using the same dubious methodology of getting engineers and doctors to sign a list to somehow show they are part of an expert consensus that global warming is not happening.

You would have a point if warmers had not spent so much telling telling us how the 2500 signatories of the IPCC report represents a scientific consensus when most of the 2500 don't have any science credentials at all because they are economists and professional bureaucrats. That said, the list is legimate and the people who signed it do dispute the warmist claims and they do have some background in science which means they should be able to understand the arguments.

The consensus argument was a joke from the begining because if the facts conclusively supported the alarmist position then there would be no need to argue consensus. Furthermore, too many alarmists have turned in to mindless religious zealots that viciously attack anyone who disagrees (this includes many alarmists scientists). That further undermines the consensus mythology because we can never know how many scientists disagree but are not willing to face the vicious attacks.

jdobbin · July 21, 2008

The consensus argument was a joke from the begining because if the facts conclusively supported the alarmist position then there would be no need to argue consensus. Furthermore, too many alarmists have turned in to mindless religious zealots that viciously attack anyone who disagrees (this includes many alarmists scientists). That further undermines the consensus mythology because we can never know how many scientists disagree but are not willing to face the vicious attacks.

There is that religious zealots remarks we keep seeing the right wing use.

This opposition list is a joke of the first order. It has no legitimacy at all.

The global warming deniers are grasping at straws.

Visionseeker · July 22, 2008

The basic problem of the federal Liberal Party is credibility. It has made so many promises and never delivered on them that no one believes a Liberal anymore.

All parties suffer from a credibility problem, but the Liberals certainly suffer for all that went unfulfilled during their 13 years in power. But there were successes among those failures, most notably: slaying the deficit. This was a major undertaking and, the Liberals have a history for pulling-off major undertakings (WWII, post-war economic reformation, the Seaway, social programs, repatriating the Constitution…).

Despite what Dion says, no one really believes him or that the Liberals will impose a carbon tax. (Dobbin doesn't seem to understand his own party or its reputation.)

The carbon tax sales job hasn’t even begun. Tax me when I spend, not when I earn may just have found a socially acceptable launching point.

Dobbin seems to know his party rather well and is even prone to criticize it from time-to-time. He’s a refreshing contrast to the echo chamber of Conservative talking points that frequently flood these forums.

As to the Greens, they will advocate for the environment but they'll have no seats in Parliament to do it. I think the $1.75 per voter may help them in the next election.

I still give May an extremely outside chance of beating Peter "where's my dog" Mackay.

jdobbin · July 22, 2008

The basic problem of the federal Liberal Party is credibility. It has made so many promises and never delivered on them that no one believes a Liberal anymore.

Chretien certainly made some ridiculous promises. The GST comes to mind. However, the party kept its promise on reducing spending and ending the deficit, something that the previous government didn't do.

Despite what Dion says, no one really believes him or that the Liberals will impose a carbon tax. (Dobbin doesn't seem to understand his own party or its reputation.)

That's not the impression you get from the polls or from the Opposition parties who seem to think if the Liberals get in, they will fulfill the promise of a carbon tax. I happen to think it is a policy that they've put their neck out too far to pull back now or after the election.

My personal preference would have been for straight tax decreases rather than tax credits. I think that has blunted some of the support economists might have given the program. I still think there are more tax decreases coming regardless.

By the way, I haven't been a member of the party for quite some time now. I might join again at some point but I certainly won't shy away from criticism of Liberal support for ethanol or my prediction that they won't win the next election.

madmax · July 22, 2008

The basic problem of the federal Liberal Party is credibility. It has made so many promises and never delivered on them that no one believes a Liberal anymore.
Despite what Dion says, no one really believes him or that the Liberals will impose a carbon tax. (Dobbin doesn't seem to understand his own party or its reputation.)

As to the Greens, they will advocate for the environment but they'll have no seats in Parliament to do it. I think the $1.75 per voter may help them in the next election.

To Ontario and the Maritimes too.

Riverwind, I know that you are a climate change doubter. I take a different view.

If you are saying Ontario and the Maritimes, then you have to include all Provinces and Territories. I understand why you pointed out these Provinces since yours was targeted.

But this isn't set up like the Transfers of which 70% go towards Quebec.

Also, those in the Martimes use a significant amount of fossil fuels/ per capita because of climate and the sources of fuel available. Same goes for the Territories which use a disproportionate amount of fossil fuels and this is a requirement for survival.

Ontario has Coal, Nuclear (it ain't green so we will pay Carbon Tax on its supply to us) and industry as well as the largest population in Canada.

Much like the Transfers, Ontario will pay out far more then it gets back under this scheme.

Ontario still is the highest source of wealth, and will have, even under have not status, it will still pay a higher portion of the transfers, as well Ontario will pay a higher portion of the Carbon tax compared to what it would receive "social services".

Seeing New Brunswick play the same card as BC, this appears to be a tactic for greedy governments to take more away form the lower and middle class incomes by finding another reason why we should get taxed more.

Riverwind isn't a climate change doubter, if you read enough of what is posted. He is more of a skeptic that doesn't believe anything he is force fed as fact. There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone is aware that the climate on earth has changed, and will always be changing.

Everyone knows humans have an impact on the environment.

After that people split hairs on what effects we can influence the best. And the Green SHift doesn't provide any proof of GHG reductions, regardless of whether the LPC implement it or not.

It will provide tax revenues for the government like the GST did.

Edited July 22, 2008 by madmax

Savant · July 23, 2008

I think the real problem is that people aren't eating enough PB&J. Since we all know that this is the real cause of global warming.

segnosaur · July 24, 2008

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

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.

Well, it looks like my skepticism was justified...

The World Bank has now gone on to distance itself from that particular report, stating:

...Mitchell is still getting input from peer reviewers and the paper is still being finalized. As a result, the Bank chose not to use a specific figure in the Spring Meetings and G8 papers. As World Bank boss Robert Zoellick said today in Japan: “That’s an internal study...So, my own view is that that is probably at the far end. You see other people talk about ranges of 20 percent, 25 percent."

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...orld-bank-says/

Wild Bill · July 24, 2008

Chretien certainly made some ridiculous promises. The GST comes to mind. However, the party kept its promise on reducing spending and ending the deficit, something that the previous government didn't do.

Perhaps you've forgotten some of the "wars" with the provinces during Chretien's reign. Much of that deficit slaying was done by offloading the debt onto the provinces. Since each taxpayer has only one wallet there was precious little benefit to be had from such a policy, except perhaps to obfuscate as to who was the pickpocket.

I particularly remember the health care war, where some provinces were allowing changes such as private clinics against Ottawa's wishes. The situation was much more difficult for the Liberals because when they took over the federal portion of health money was something like 80% and they had chopped it to maybe a third or less. Provinces such as Quebec and Ontario reasoned that if the feds no longer put in so much money then maybe it might be more efficient to go it alone and not have to provide services as per a federal mandate. By drastically cutting back on health care transfers to the provinces the Libs left themselves in a position of little financial clout to force provinces to toe the line.

To tell the truth, at the time I thought it looked good on them! :lol:

Perhaps you are too young to remember those headlines.

Not that I'm challenging you about Mulroney's rule, mind you. He did indeed do little to help the debt or the deficit. To be fair, I'm not sure if he had the vision from his ivory tower to see the effects of free trade with the conversion to a poorer paying warehouse instead of manufacturing economy. Or the savage recession that hit just after he instituted the GST. Perhaps if these factors had not occurred he would have left the country in a better financial situation.

Also, Chretien didn't adopt his fiscal policy because he truly believed it was better for the country. The gnomes in Zurich told him flat out that they intended to pull the fiscal rug out from under Canada by downgrading our credit rating, if things weren't improved with the amount of debt and deficit. Chretien had no choice and its certain he would never had changed his philosophy of governing otherwise.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Wild Bill

blueblood · July 25, 2008

Perhaps you've forgotten some of the "wars" with the provinces during Chretien's reign. Much of that deficit slaying was done by offloading the debt onto the provinces. Since each taxpayer has only one wallet there was precious little benefit to be had from such a policy, except perhaps to obfuscate as to who was the pickpocket.
I particularly remember the health care war, where some provinces were allowing changes such as private clinics against Ottawa's wishes. The situation was much more difficult for the Liberals because when they took over the federal portion of health money was something like 80% and they had chopped it to maybe a third or less. Provinces such as Quebec and Ontario reasoned that if the feds no longer put in so much money then maybe it might be more efficient to go it alone and not have to provide services as per a federal mandate. By drastically cutting back on health care transfers to the provinces the Libs left themselves in a position of little financial clout to force provinces to toe the line.

To tell the truth, at the time I thought it looked good on them!

Perhaps you are too young to remember those headlines.

Not that I'm challenging you about Mulroney's rule, mind you. He did indeed do little to help the debt or the deficit. To be fair, I'm not sure if he had the vision from his ivory tower to see the effects of free trade with the conversion to a poorer paying warehouse instead of manufacturing economy. Or the savage recession that hit just after he instituted the GST. Perhaps if these factors had not occurred he would have left the country in a better financial situation.

Also, Chretien didn't adopt his fiscal policy because he truly believed it was better for the country. The gnomes in Zurich told him flat out that they intended to pull the fiscal rug out from under Canada by downgrading our credit rating, if things weren't improved with the amount of debt and deficit. Chretien had no choice and its certain he would never had changed his philosophy of governing otherwise.

Back the train up one PM, Trudeau gave us the ginormous deficit, Mulroney instituted policies at the end of his "administration" to get us out of this mess and it was unpopular; no wonder he bailed out and left Campbell to dry.

All Chretien had to do was go into cruise control and it was out of the financial mess. The GST makes the gov't a lot of money.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

Well, it looks like my skepticism was justified...
The World Bank has now gone on to distance itself from that particular report, stating:

...Mitchell is still getting input from peer reviewers and the paper is still being finalized. As a result, the Bank chose not to use a specific figure in the Spring Meetings and G8 papers. As World Bank boss Robert Zoellick said today in Japan: “That’s an internal study...So, my own view is that that is probably at the far end. You see other people talk about ranges of 20 percent, 25 percent."

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...orld-bank-says/

And you see the U.S. still talking about 3 to 5%. Obviously the lower number is not what people are talking about now. Certainly when Harper says there has been no inflation as a result of ethanol, he is not accurate in the least.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

Perhaps you've forgotten some of the "wars" with the provinces during Chretien's reign. Much of that deficit slaying was done by offloading the debt onto the provinces. Since each taxpayer has only one wallet there was precious little benefit to be had from such a policy, except perhaps to obfuscate as to who was the pickpocket.
I particularly remember the health care war, where some provinces were allowing changes such as private clinics against Ottawa's wishes. The situation was much more difficult for the Liberals because when they took over the federal portion of health money was something like 80% and they had chopped it to maybe a third or less. Provinces such as Quebec and Ontario reasoned that if the feds no longer put in so much money then maybe it might be more efficient to go it alone and not have to provide services as per a federal mandate. By drastically cutting back on health care transfers to the provinces the Libs left themselves in a position of little financial clout to force provinces to toe the line.

To tell the truth, at the time I thought it looked good on them!

Perhaps you are too young to remember those headlines.

Perhaps you are too young to remember the cuts in services overall federally. It took more than increased tax money coming in to slay the deficit. It took enormous cuts. It wasn't all offloaded. Cuts included VIA Rail, the military college, selling stakes in former Crowns.

And during that whole time, there was support for getting the deficit under control.

The provinces cut as well and so were the cities. Everyone had lived well beyond their means but there was a certain acceptance of the pain because of the recognition of how much overspending that was being done.

Not that I'm challenging you about Mulroney's rule, mind you. He did indeed do little to help the debt or the deficit. To be fair, I'm not sure if he had the vision from his ivory tower to see the effects of free trade with the conversion to a poorer paying warehouse instead of manufacturing economy. Or the savage recession that hit just after he instituted the GST. Perhaps if these factors had not occurred he would have left the country in a better financial situation.

Mulroney raised taxes over just under 20 times during 8 years and did little to cut spending. Program spending was cut during the Liberal years as Statscan reports show quite clearly.

Also, Chretien didn't adopt his fiscal policy because he truly believed it was better for the country. The gnomes in Zurich told him flat out that they intended to pull the fiscal rug out from under Canada by downgrading our credit rating, if things weren't improved with the amount of debt and deficit. Chretien had no choice and its certain he would never had changed his philosophy of governing otherwise.

Mulroney faced the same critics and didn't do anything to reduce spending. It started with Chetien because fiscal Liberals were driving it.

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

However, there are plenty of commentators on this forum who think food for fuel ethanol is a great policy.

You know, I used to think it was a mistake using corn for ethanol... but, right now, I'm not so sure.

You see, it turns out that while corn may not be as efficient at producing ethanol as things like switchgrass, it does have an advantage... the result of the fermentation process for corn is a type of mash that can be used as cattle feed. In fact, one rancher has managed to reduce his expenses by several hundred thousand dollars by using this mash.

There's even one farm that: Grows corn, ferments it to produce ethanol, takes the mash byproduct to feed to cattle, then uses the cattle manure to generate natural gas to use to power the fermentation process.

So, at least in the U.S. (and possibly Canada) we may not necessarily giving up food for fuel... we might simply end up taking corn that MIGHT have been used to feed cattle, and instead of feeding them directly we'd be feeding them whatever is left after fermentation.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=87782087

http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx2036.pdf

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa53...09/ai_n21478803

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

You know, I used to think it was a mistake using corn for ethanol... but, right now, I'm not so sure.

The fact that it takes massive subsidies to make it work should be enough for most fiscal conservatives to reject it.

Edited July 25, 2008 by jdobbin

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

The fact that it takes massive subsidies to make it work should be enough for most fiscal conservatives to reject it.

I'm not necessarily a fan of the subsidies... however, at least here in North America the subsidies may not necessarily be needed.

In this one study, its suggested that Corn Based ethanol becomes competitive with no subsidies when oil is above $50/barrel. See: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/ag/Gallag...)PowerPoint.pdf (page 18).

Or, here's another way to look at things... in the U.S. there is a $.51/gallon subsidy on ethanol. Ethanol futures are at around $2.30/gallon. Without the subsidy, the cost would have been $2.81. This is less than the current average price of gas of around $4/gallon.

http://www.fna.ca/index.php?option=com_con...89&Itemid=1

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=239461

That doesn't mean that I expect the subsidies to disappear... after all, they're politically popular with all political parties... just that they're not needed.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

I'm not necessarily a fan of the subsidies... however, at least here in North America the subsidies may not necessarily be needed.
In this one study, its suggested that Corn Based ethanol becomes competitive with no subsidies when oil is above $50/barrel. See: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/ag/Gallag...)PowerPoint.pdf (page 18).

That doesn't mean that I expect the subsidies to disappear... after all, they're politically popular with all political parties... just that they're not needed.

The U.S. in their last budget reduced the subsidy. In part this occurred because the U.S. has a terrible spending problem and it is hard to justify it on a program that has a dubious record on reducing emissions.

In Canada, the subsidy and forcing consumers to buy ethanol with their gas is the only thing that has driven growth. It has all been the name of reducing emissions. When the whole of ethanol production is taken into consideration, the reduction in emissions falls way short of what is advertised.

Even if the World Bank's figures of 75% increase in food is too high, it certainly appears that the claim that food has risen only 3 to 5% appear too low. Even at the low range, the C.D. Howe study says food prices are up $450 million for a policy that is supposed to reduce emissions. It is a lot of money to pay for a policy that doesn't work.

Harper dismissed inflation concerns last week. At the very least, he should be initiating a study like the British are supposed to release this week to show what the true cost is and what the estimated reduction is emissions is.

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

Even if the World Bank's figures of 75% increase in food is too high, it certainly appears that the claim that food has risen only 3 to 5% appear too low. Even at the low range, the C.D. Howe study says food prices are up $450 million for a policy that is supposed to reduce emissions. It is a lot of money to pay for a policy that doesn't work.

I feel the same way about the Liberal Green Shift plan... its going to cause all sorts of distortions in the economy, drive up costs for many people who are already at the lowest possible level of energy usage. Its a lot of money to pay for a policy that doesn't work.

Of course, I already pointed out that if the CD How estimates are right, it would only add about $15 to the cost of my food bill, as opposed to around $150-200 increase to my general expenses with the green shift plan.

segnosaur · July 25, 2008

The fact that it takes massive subsidies to make it work should be enough for most fiscal conservatives to reject it.

By the way, if you are truly against subsidies to help out "alternative" sources of energy, then how do you feel about the 'incentives' (i.e. subsidies) that the Liberals plan to offer producers of renewable power? (The conservatives had partially cut those incentives, but the Liberals plan to reverse the cuts.)

http://www.liberal.ca/story_13107_e.aspx

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

I feel the same way about the Liberal Green Shift plan... its going to cause all sorts of distortions in the economy, drive up costs for many people who are already at the lowest possible level of energy usage. Its a lot of money to pay for a policy that doesn't work.

A lot of economists including Paul Volcker believe the carbon tax is the way to go if you want to see reductions in meaningful emissions.

Of course, I already pointed out that if the CD How estimates are right, it would only add about $15 to the cost of my food bill, as opposed to around $150-200 increase to my general expenses with the green shift plan.

That $15 is going to be a little low if the true cost of ethanol is a lot higher than 5%.

I still think that for many people, the reductions in taxes and reduction in exposure to the carbon tax will result less hardship than what your example is.

jdobbin · July 25, 2008

By the way, if you are truly against subsidies to help out "alternative" sources of energy, then how do you feel about the 'incentives' (i.e. subsidies) that the Liberals plan to offer producers of renewable power? (The conservatives had partially cut those incentives, but the Liberals plan to reverse the cuts.)

If I recall correctly, the Tories restored the measure in full this year.

I am against the subsidies.

What I do support is the federal government assisting in major infrastructure such as an east-west power grid. This would assist provinces who need energy as well as those provinces that have energy to export. It would be a major job creator as well as major generator of economic pay-offs.