Jump to content

Why not Michael Chong?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Chong is half Liberal half Conservative.  Why would a true conservative vote for someone who wants to put carbon taxes on us.  Not everyone falls for the man-made climate change hoax.   I won't vote for O'Leary either.  Where has he been all along.  He suddenly appears and want to be leader.  We don't even know what he stands for.   I think he is a risky choice.  I support Kelly Leitch because she has not wavered on her stand.  He is against carbon taxes and support an immigrant interviewing process for everyone.  It's a good plan.  She is very stable and trustworthy.

Whilst I agree carbon taxes won't do a damn thing to help man made climate change, which is most definitely not a hoax, they have to tax something if they want money, so why not tax that?  There's no good reason not to. 

A lot of people, including me, are half Liberal half Conservative in their views.  It sounds like Chong is definitely the leader for me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Not everyone falls for the man-made climate change hoax.  

Let's hope that we don't get another anti-science conservative who brandishes stupidity like the climate-change conspiracy theory.

You don't have to believe in a carbon tax - and in fact the economics around climate change aren't discussed enough - but hopefully the US example will warn people off purposefully-stupid candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Canada may not be able to solve the problem globally. We can hopefully reduce our own contribution to the problem, in proportion to the amount that we cause the problem in the first place.

I refuse to support a grossly expensive solution that solves nothing.

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Actually, the point of Carbon taxes is to increase the price of fossil fuels to reflect their true costs (by taking in externalities). By doing so, it will hopefully put other technologies (I favor nuclear, but others may like solar or wind) on a more even footing.

Increasing the cost of fossil fuels means slowing the economy. Increasing the cost of fossil fuels while most other nations are not doing so is idiotic.

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

But again, the thing is, if conservatives don't like carbon taxes, then come up with alternatives, and lets judge each possible solution appropriately.

Okay, I vote we do nothing. This solution has the benefit of saving us hundred of billions of dollars and being equally effective to carbon taxes.

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Probably because those challenging climate science are often not equipped to debate the science in a reasonable rational matter. (Its sort of like a creationist trying to claim that they have "proof" that evolution is false, when really its their own ignorance being demonstrated.) And yes, there may be the occasional problem with people making mistakes, or making exagerations.

Or outright lying. Look, the number one most visible climate change scientist in Canada is a guy whose degree is in genetics and zoology, and everyone on the climate change side adores and worships him. None ever question his academic credentials. Yet let anyone who isn't a bonafide climate scientist with seven PHDs question some of the logic or numbers and the people on that side of the divide shriek with contempt. Sorry, not buying it.

Besides, while scientists might tell you what they think is going on they are ill equipped to devise a solution. Carbon taxes is not that solution.

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Admittedly, I haven't been paying much attention to the leadership race. But, from glancing at some of the potential leaders, at least some would actually drive me to vote the the Liberals if they were to win.

You mean some are conservative?

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Chong seems pretty reasonable at least policy wise.

Meaning he's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Whilst I agree carbon taxes won't do a damn thing to help man made climate change, which is most definitely not a hoax, they have to tax something if they want money, so why not tax that?  There's no good reason not to.

Because our next door neighbor is not doing so. The more expensive we make it for business to operate here the less likely they are to do so. I wonder how many of these carbon tax enthusiasts would remain so if their company announced they were closing down and moving to Wisconsin because of the high taxes here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because our next door neighbor is not doing so. The more expensive we make it for business to operate here the less likely they are to do so. I wonder how many of these carbon tax enthusiasts would remain so if their company announced they were closing down and moving to Wisconsin because of the high taxes here.

As soon as Trump is impeached, things will return to normal down there.  They'll put an educated person back in charge of the EPA, and they'll start making pointless gestures again.

Tax personal gasoline use.  Especially tax recreational use.  I'd charge five bucks a litre for snowmobile, jetski and ATV use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Google ten reasons man-made climate change is a hoax.   Thousands of scientists oppose the theory. 

Doesn't matter.  It's all BS.  There is a lot of BS in support, too, like the notion that modelling is actually accurate, and the idea we can do anything about it, but generally speaking, to say 7 billion people can keep themselves fed, warm and employed on this planet without having an effect is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Not everyone falls for the man-made climate change hoax

Climate change is real and is happening right now in your neighborhood.  Hardly matters at this point if it's man-made or part of the earth's natural cycle, but it's effects that were anticipated a decade ago are beginning to occur - and faster than expected.  What the long term effects really will be isn't certain, but they could be catastrophic.   Hopefully, it won't be - perhaps the worst models are not what we'll end up experiencing, and perhaps we'll figure stuff out in time to effectively mitigate the worst effect.  Or maybe the aliens will come and save us.   

Yeah, I know conservatives think taxes are akin to devil's work, but taxes give us things that we complain about when we don't have - safe roads, education, yada yada.   Carbon taxes may not be the perfect solution - but they do have the effect of reducing emissions that support the feedback loop that is accelerating the melting of the polar ice and the rising of the sea level.   Carbon taxes alone won't save us - but refusing to do anything "because it's not enough" is not the answer either.   If I were in a leaking lifeboat and had one bucket to empty it, I wouldn't stop and toss the bucket overboard because the water was coming in faster than I could clear it - I'd keep working that bucket so I could keep afloat long enough for another option to present itself.   Wouldn't you?

Anyway, it's not that I specifically support carbon taxes; it's that Chong at least has this issue on his radar, which is more than can be said for most Conservative politicians - and I appreciate that.   Perhaps in 3 or 4 years other mitigating strategies will be developed and he'll implement those instead of a carbon tax.    I support him because he's smart enough to believe scientists and data, instead of quacks and crackpots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Google ten reasons man-made climate change is a hoax.   Thousands of scientists oppose the theory.   I paid $2100 in the past seven years on carbon taxes.  It hits come people while others pay little or nothing. 

I don't have to Google anything, the onus is on you.  And I already pointed out that the economics is a different question.

 

But the topic of climate change is for another thread, this is about Chong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Fair enough... I only glanced at your first paragraph.  Keep it to Chong though..

Chong is out of sync with all other 13 conservative candidates.  I doubt he has much support in the party.  I don't think he has much chance.  There has to be a difference between parties.  If one wants to pay carbon taxes, they can vote for a Liberal or NDP.  I think most Conservatives are generally against taxes to begin with. so it is important to have someone who opposes carbon taxes, not support them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Actually, the point of Carbon taxes is to increase the price of fossil fuels to reflect their true costs (by taking in externalities).

One issue is that the levels of taxation being proposed by both Chong and Trudeau are not being related to estimates of the net negative externalities associated with CO2 emissions. If you look at the 2 main integrated assessment models used by the EPA, Nordhaus' DICE model and Tol's FUND model, they both suggest a tax of about $20 / ton (which increases exponentially in real value by about 3% per year). But Trudeau and Chong want to just linearly increase the level of taxation by $10 per year without adequate justification. And they will not change their policy if new information is obtained. For example, the IPCC's 5th assessment report has no estimate of the best estimate of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) due to conflicting estimates between instrumental estimates, paleoclimate estimates and General circulation model estimates. However, the 4th assessment report gave a best estimate of 3 C, thus that is what has been used in the Paris agreement, for example, to determine what emission levels are needed to meet the 2 C target (and the 2 C target isn't supported by integrated assessment models, but that is a bit of an aside). However, once the 6th assessment report comes out, it very likely will contain a new estimate for ECS and if you have been following the scientific literature, the new best estimate will likely be less than the 3C estimate of the 4th assessment report. If this occurs then surely it would make sense to adjust the level of taxation to take this new information into account. But Trudeau, Chong, Notley, heck everyone, refuses to adjust the level of taxation as new information is obtained, which to me is completely insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to the topic of why Michael Chong sucks, here are some reasons:

 

1. He has said that the Charter enshrines Canadian values. Given the preamble of the charter, the implication of this is that 'recognition of the supremacy of god' is a Canadian value thus atheists are unCanadian.

 

2. He is completely against any reform to our health care system and has gone as far as to say that support of our health care system is a Canadian value. Newsflash: According to the World Health Organization Healthcare rankings, Canada is ranked 30th, the USA is ranked 39th, and France is ranked 1st. Moving from our entirely public system (well technically we have 13 systems) to a mixed system like France, Australia, Japan, Germany and all the other countries that exceed us in the rankings makes a lot of sense.

 

3. He is against the abolition of supply management. Yes he supports the completely immoral cartel on eggs/milk/poultry that harms the poorest in society by doubling the price of these goods, and has zero economic justification. You might think that this is a small issue, but I think it is a strong indicator of how an individual will approach problems. Is Michael Chong willing to stand against the status quo and powerful lobby groups to stand up for the wellbeing of society as a whole? The answer is clearly no. Australia got rid of their supply management, and they are better off as a result. Why can't we do the same?

Edited by -1=e^ipi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Argus said:

He's bland, a nonentity, and a boring speaker. And his support of carbon taxes dooms any hope he might have had. You don't have to be a climate denier to judge that the idea of our paying California some sort of offseting fee in order to run our power plants is insanity. And looking at the world and it's rising emissions, it's clear nothing we do is going to have any significant impact. I would say we'll put a carbon tax on when every major emitter (and competitor) does and not before.

1

Paying California an offsetting fee is stupid. That's why Chong's policy of putting a price on the consumer side of the economy, cutting regulations and subsidies, and introducing the largest income tax cut in Canadian history makes sense. Besides any environmental impact it might have, I think any policy that helps us shift away from income taxes is important. Income taxes are the worst kind of taxation but we need revenue to run the government. Chong's plan allows people the opportunity to decide how they want to spend their money, rather than governemnts taking it before we ever see it.

If we're going to argue that Canada's impact will only be minimal because other countries are bigger, then why do anything on the international stage? Why should we help fight ISIS if we're so small? Why get involved in any wars or helping third world countries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, capricorn said:

Chong opposed Harper's motion of "Quebecois as a nation within a unified Canada" and quit his cabinet post. I doubt Quebecers have forgotten this and Chong has no chance in La Belle Province.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/tory-cabinet-minister-quits-post-over-motion-1.585951

 

Trudeau had the same position as Chong and he won 40 seats in Quebec.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

Chong is half Liberal half Conservative.  Why would a true conservative vote for someone who wants to put carbon taxes on us.  Not everyone falls for the man-made climate change hoax.   I won't vote for O'Leary either.  Where has he been all along.  He suddenly appears and want to be leader.  We don't even know what he stands for.   I think he is a risky choice.  I support Kelly Leitch because she has not wavered on her stand.  She is against carbon taxes and supports an immigrant interviewing process for everyone.  It's a good plan.  She is very stable and trustworthy.

 

Why shouldn't Conservatives support Chong's version of a carbon tax? Just because some people feel climate change is a hoax? 

 

15 hours ago, Argus said:

The only reason O'Leary is number one is because most people don't know any of the other candidates. The only reason Chong is high is because the NDP and Liberals like him. That doesn't mean they'll ever vote Conservative, of course. But they like him better than, well, the actual conservatives, mostly because of his name and his climate change stuff.

 

Chong also has support from undecided voters, the people who actually decide the elections. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Argus said:

Because our next door neighbor is not doing so. The more expensive we make it for business to operate here the less likely they are to do so. I wonder how many of these carbon tax enthusiasts would remain so if their company announced they were closing down and moving to Wisconsin because of the high taxes here.

 

How is it going to be more expensive to operate a business under Chong's proposal? He will not tax trade-dependent industries or the oil and gas industry. He plans to cut taxes by $18 billion while phasing in the carbon tax over a decade. Nobody else is proposing to cut taxes that fast.

Currently, we have a hidden carbon tax; they're called green subsidies and regulations and for some reason the Conservative Party has supported them and increased them. Let's gut all these regulations/subsidies and shrink the size of government. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

Chong is half Liberal half Conservative.  Why would a true conservative vote for someone who wants to put carbon taxes on us.  

Keep in mind that Chong's policies involve more than just carbon taxes. He wants to offset it by (for example) reductions in income taxes. The end result is that the average Canadian will end up with about the same level of taxation. However, those who choose to use more fossil fuels (e.g. by driving a hummer to work every day) will end up paying more, and those that use less fossil fuels (e.g. by driving a civic) will pay less.

From a purely libertarian/economic point of view, that's actually the fairest thing to do.

If you accept the science (which is neither conservative nor liberal, but, well, science), global warming will have an effect that will impact people in different ways. Either way, the government (and ultimately the taxpayer) will end up paying for it somehow, whether its immediately (carbon taxes, cap and trade, subsidized green energy) or in the future (higher food prices, loss of property in coastal areas through rising sea levels). The idea that people's contribution to the solution to the problem should be proportional to how much they caused the problem in the first place actually seems like a pretty good idea to me.

I support Kelly Leitch because she has not wavered on her stand.  She is against carbon taxes and supports an immigrant interviewing process for everyone.  It's a good plan.  She is very stable and trustworthy.

Leitch is too close to being a Donald Trump-lite for my liking.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

One issue is that the levels of taxation being proposed by both Chong and Trudeau are not being related to estimates of the net negative externalities associated with CO2 emissions.

That may be a fair assessment. And that's why I want the conservatives to actually be involved in the discussion about climate change... so they can approach the issue with a more fiscal/business oriented mindset.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Newfoundlander said:

Besides any environmental impact it might have, I think any policy that helps us shift away from income taxes is important. Income taxes are the worst kind of taxation but we need revenue to run the government.

While income taxes are not the most efficient forms of taxation, there are still worse forms of taxation than income. Corporate tax and the Capital gains tax both have higher marginal costs of public funds. For example, see table 1 here: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/bev-dahlby-012-3.pdf

 

With respect to moving from income tax to CO2 emission tax, the economic impact of revenue switching towards a $30 tax CO2 emission tax for BC has been estimated to be around 0.08% GDP. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765515000317 So i don't think it makes sense to pretend that CO2 taxes are more efficient than even income taxes.

Also, given that empirically determined exponent the abatement cost function is typically around 2.8 (this is what William Nordhaus' DICE model uses), the costs of moving towards CO2 emission taxation are not linear. So using the 0.08% number, a $60 tax would have a ~0.56% decrease in GDP, a $120 tax would have a ~3.88% reduction in GDP, as so forth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Argus said:

I refuse to support a grossly expensive solution that solves nothing.

It solves the problem in proportion to the amount of problems we are causing in the first place.

Increasing the cost of fossil fuels means slowing the economy. Increasing the cost of fossil fuels while most other nations are not doing so is idiotic.

Depends on how carbon taxes are implemented. Chong's plan is to offset carbon taxes with reductions in other taxes, which would offset much of the negative economic impact of the taxes.

Or outright lying. Look, the number one most visible climate change scientist in Canada is a guy whose degree is in genetics and zoology, and everyone on the climate change side adores and worships him. None ever question his academic credentials.

This is exactly the type of thing I was talking about... rather than dealing with the science, conservatives picking some non-issue (i.e. that a non-climatologist supports the concept of global warming), rather than actually dealing with the actual evidence.

I don't base my understanding of the science of Global warming because David Suzuki or Al Gore say so... I base it on (for example) the people of NASA, who don't perhaps get the spotlight but have the knowledge and abilities to actually analyze the problem. And I base it upon people like Phil Plait, a.k.a. the Bad Astronomer, who has both substantial experience with astronomy (so has knowledge of planetary systems), AND is active in the skeptical movement.

Yes, people like Suzuki are not climatologists, but they aren't necessarily doing the research themselves, just passing on information from those who DID do the research.

Yet let anyone who isn't a bonafide climate scientist with seven PHDs question some of the logic or numbers and the people on that side of the divide shriek with contempt. Sorry, not buying it.

We pay more attention to experts in the field because, well, they're actual experts. Science can be hard, and what many people think makes sense doesn't actually stand up to proper scrutiny. But hey, if a non-scientist came up with real evidence that global warming wasn't an issue, then they should be listened to. Unfortunately, all the evidence that they seem to provide is as vacuous as "it snowed a lot so global warming is false", or "David Suzuki things global warming is real but he's not a climatologist so it must be false".

Besides, while scientists might tell you what they think is going on they are ill equipped to devise a solution. Carbon taxes is not that solution.

This illustrates perfectly the problem with the political right...

Earlier in your post you hint strongly that its not a problem... "Suzuki is a biologist so climate change must be wrong". Then you turn around and say "Carbon taxes are not a solution". So, since you seem to be so dismissive of the issue, then why exactly should anyone listen to you when you try to actually claim "carbon taxes aren't a solution"?

Being a conservative should not mean someone is automatically dismissive of science.

Admittedly, I haven't been paying much attention to the leadership race. But, from glancing at some of the potential leaders, at least some would actually drive me to vote the the Liberals if they were to win.

You mean some are conservative?

As I said before, its a tragedy that being conservative seems to equate with being anti-science.

I voted conservative in the last federal election. I voted conservative in the previous federal election. I also vote conservative in the provincial elections. I have spent time criticizing previous and the current Liberal governments. And I think there were a lot of ways that Harper failed by not going far enough (such as eliminating the CBC). But when I see so many on the political right condemning basic science, it certainly makes it difficult to justify my vote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...