Harper to name Michael Wilson as Ambassador to U.S.

[concerned citizen]

Can we say not prepared to govern loud enough on the part of harper et al?

Love hearing people from the right defend Wilsons appointment and Emmersons crossing the floor. It shows Canadians how full of hyprocrisy the "new" CPC are. The same old lying liars as the Mulroney government was and now apparently is yet again.

I'd take a conservative over a liberal anyday. The liberals in the past 12 years have acted like dictators and squandered so much of our taxpayer dollars that they should be forced to hand over their pensions and every dime they earn to pay us back.

The only reason we had balanced budgets and surpluses is because of the programs that Mulroney set in place.

But could someone fill me in on the "lies" of the Mulroney gov't? I remember gov't lies but they're all Liberal. I do however remember unpopular policies of the Mulroney gov't but I don't remember any lies.

[shoop]

Harper is showing his shrewdness yet again. At first glance I thought he made a huge mistake with bringing up Traditional Marriage on the first day of the campaign. Then things died down. It looked like brillaint timing in hindsight. The Emerson thing looks like the same successful strategy. After the election win he deserves the benefit of the doubt

I spoke to a buddy of mine who hates Harper. He honestly tried to argue that the CPC deserved all the heat it got over Emerson because their entire campaign was really about corruption. Sure the campaign *sounded* policy driven, but the *obvious* undercurrent was corruption.

wtf? When there is that much irrational hate for Harper all he can do is stay true to himself and go with a long run plan.

Good work so far PM Harper.

A fair and speedy resolution to softwood lumber will raise all doubts about Emerson ASAP.

I've seen very few people actually defend Harper on this even conservatives are concerned. What I find astonishing is even though Harper did nothing illegal or against the rules, all of a sudden old Reform policies are acceptable e.g. recall an MP. Also interesting how everyone can justify Belinda's actions but not Emerson's.

I'll get as indignant over Emerson when others get just as indignant over the other floor crossers and want them recalled.

[tml12]

Wilson sold us out under Mulroney and now he is getting a reward from Harper.

How did Wilson sell us out? the FTA and NAFTA are the reasons that we have a trade surplus. The GST replaced a tax that was 6% higher (the Manufacturers Tax was 13%) and we are able to get rebates from this tax where we weren't able to get anything from the previous tax.

I really like this appointment because along with some of the key cabinet positions it shows that Harper is supporting former Tories instead of Reformers and should help in the next election.

Totally agree.

Just one minor quibble--the MST was 13.5%. It originally started out at 9% but being a hidden tax, it was constantly nudged up. My prices dropped when the GST replaced the MST. Additionally, the duties (some as high as 18%) I was paying were phased out over 5 years. For all the previous uproar over NAFTA, I didn't hear any complaints from my customers.

Mulroney did the right thing--our economy has been relatively prosperous since NAFTA.

Members of the ruling party calling Americans morons, bastards, coalition of the idiots, stomping on a George Bush doll on State TV; it was deeply embarrassing and unprofessional. Having amicable relations with a wealthy country of 300 million that buys 85% of your exports is A Good Thing™.

Agreed Monty and well put.

[scribblet]

Harper is showing his shrewdness yet again. At first glance I thought he made a huge mistake with bringing up Traditional Marriage on the first day of the campaign. Then things died down. It looked like brillaint timing in hindsight. The Emerson thing looks like the same successful strategy. After the election win he deserves the benefit of the doubt

I spoke to a buddy of mine who hates Harper. He honestly tried to argue that the CPC deserved all the heat it got over Emerson because their entire campaign was really about corruption. Sure the campaign *sounded* policy driven, but the *obvious* undercurrent was corruption.

wtf? When there is that much irrational hate for Harper all he can do is stay true to himself and go with a long run plan.

Good work so far PM Harper.

A fair and speedy resolution to softwood lumber will raise all doubts about Emerson ASAP.

I've seen very few people actually defend Harper on this even conservatives are concerned. What I find astonishing is even though Harper did nothing illegal or against the rules, all of a sudden old Reform policies are acceptable e.g. recall an MP. Also interesting how everyone can justify Belinda's actions but not Emerson's.

I'll get as indignant over Emerson when others get just as indignant over the other floor crossers and want them recalled.

You bring up a good point of irrational hate for Harper. I find that those people have the same irrational hate for the U.S.

Wilson is a good pick, he served under Mulroney who had good relations with the U.S., something we need to work at these days. Wilson's credentiols and his low ikey style makes him a good choice.

[Spike22]

Harper is showing his shrewdness yet again. At first glance I thought he made a huge mistake with bringing up Traditional Marriage on the first day of the campaign. Then things died down. It looked like brillaint timing in hindsight. The Emerson thing looks like the same successful strategy. After the election win he deserves the benefit of the doubt

I spoke to a buddy of mine who hates Harper. He honestly tried to argue that the CPC deserved all the heat it got over Emerson because their entire campaign was really about corruption. Sure the campaign *sounded* policy driven, but the *obvious* undercurrent was corruption.

wtf? When there is that much irrational hate for Harper all he can do is stay true to himself and go with a long run plan.

Good work so far PM Harper.

A fair and speedy resolution to softwood lumber will raise all doubts about Emerson ASAP.

I've seen very few people actually defend Harper on this even conservatives are concerned. What I find astonishing is even though Harper did nothing illegal or against the rules, all of a sudden old Reform policies are acceptable e.g. recall an MP. Also interesting how everyone can justify Belinda's actions but not Emerson's.

I'll get as indignant over Emerson when others get just as indignant over the other floor crossers and want them recalled.

You bring up a good point of irrational hate for Harper. I find that those people have the same irrational hate for the U.S.

Wilson is a good pick, he served under Mulroney who had good relations with the U.S., something we need to work at these days. Wilson's credentiols and his low ikey style makes him a good choice.

He definitely knows how to work in the background to get things accomplished. I am sure relations will improve with him in Washington. How could they get any worse...

[speaker]

It's good to see so many believe in the power of poositive thought. Wilson will be good for us because ....or Wilson will be good for US CAN relations... or Harper has led the fight to rebuild the Conservative party by bringing back the guys who wrecked it and Canada in their first incarnation...

If any of you are actually Canadians and not closet or openly American, you should give your head a shake. NAFTA was good for Canada? What is the percentage of Canadian industry that is owned by the American multinationals as opposed to what it was before the Mulrooney era? Brian was an American Prime Minister and I thought we were well rid of him. Bringing back his right hand man is about as subtle as you'd expect from the LIB Cons.

[shoop]

Instead of the lame questions, why not do the research yourself?

Or maybe ask more pertinent questions. Like the value of cross-border trade? GNP per capita?

Canada is far better off economically now than it was pre-NAFTA. Only irrelevant dinosaurs like John "Patty patty bum bum" Turner continue to rally against the deal. The proof really is in the pudding.

If any of you are actually Canadians and not closet or openly American, you should give your head a shake. NAFTA was good for Canada? What is the percentage of Canadian industry that is owned by the American multinationals as opposed to what it was before the Mulrooney era? Brian was an American Prime Minister and I thought we were well rid of him. Bringing back his right hand man is about as subtle as you'd expect from the LIB Cons.

[speaker]

We're better off economically? I asked those questions as rhetorical statements. I never considered that there might be Canadians out there who are pleased with the deal that Wilson and the boys gave to the American corporations. GDP and GNP are such useless calculations of a nations worth that I'm surprised there are still people trying to shill them.

I suppose that if you figure that what the nation is worth is what is in the pockets and purses of Canadians after we have sold everything at less than replacement value then GNP might be valid

[geoffrey]

We're better off economically? I asked those questions as rhetorical statements. I never considered that there might be Canadians out there who are pleased with the deal that Wilson and the boys gave to the American corporations. GDP and GNP are such useless calculations of a nations worth that I'm surprised there are still people trying to shill them.

I suppose that if you figure that what the nation is worth is what is in the pockets and purses of Canadians after we have sold everything at less than replacement value then GNP might be valid

Wow, you sure love groundless fear mongering don't you speaker?

Real GDP is the best way to determine a nations wealth, there is no better measure. Real GNP is an accurate method to tell if domestic productivity and economic power has increased (which it has dramatically). NAFTA has benifetted Canadians much more than Americans. We would have no auto industry without it. Ontario would be an improvrished have-not province without it. Alberta would not have the money to procede with the oil sands project.

Seriously, are you so naive to believe we have enough investment capital in a small country like ours to fund major projects? Or are you one of those that believe all industry should be in the government's hands anyways?

You really have no idea what your talking about do? Selling our nation out? Canadian's hold more foreign ownership than the yanks. Buying companies cross-border was allowed before NAFTA anyways!

Protectionism is ignornance at its finest. While there can be places where domestic industries need to be protected from massive multi-nationals and dumping, in general, free trade creates the best possible economic situation for our country.

We are a nation of exports, without them, we are 2nd-world. Who's going to take our products when we load theirs up with tariffs and other barriers? Oh wait, no one!!!

I'd really love to hear your ideas on calculating national wealth without GDP or GNP. Some 'protectionist blind-nationalist' index?

[ritamd]

Can we say not prepared to govern loud enough on the part of harper et al?

Love hearing people from the right defend Wilsons appointment and Emmersons crossing the floor. It shows Canadians how full of hyprocrisy the "new" CPC are. The same old lying liars as the Mulroney government was and now apparently is yet again.

Like they say politics a bit*h and you better have thick skin and not give a hoot about what people think or say. People are plain ignorant if they think the liberals have exclusive rights to scandels and backroom politics.

Wow I guess that was just a comment that says the CPC are as corrupt as they accused the Liberals of being. LOL LOL LOl LOl LOl

[shoop]

You really don't understand much, do you?

What is the *corruption*? Involved here. What inquiry proved the CPC *only* stole $3.8 million of taxpayer dollars?

Wilson will look out for the best interest of Canada as Ambassador. Not just attack the U.S. to score points for domestic purposes back home.

Wow I guess that was just a comment that says the CPC are as corrupt as they accused the Liberals of being. LOL LOL LOl LOl LOl

[speaker]

geoffrey wrote "Wow, you sure love groundless fear mongering don't you speaker?

Real GDP is the best way to determine a nations wealth, there is no better measure. Real GNP is an accurate method to tell if domestic productivity and economic power has increased (which it has dramatically). NAFTA has benifetted Canadians much more than Americans. We would have no auto industry without it. Ontario would be an improvrished have-not province without it. Alberta would not have the money to procede with the oil sands project.

Seriously, are you so naive to believe we have enough investment capital in a small country like ours to fund major projects? Or are you one of those that believe all industry should be in the government's hands anyways?

You really have no idea what your talking about do? Selling our nation out? Canadian's hold more foreign ownership than the yanks. Buying companies cross-border was allowed before NAFTA anyways!

Protectionism is ignornance at its finest. While there can be places where domestic industries need to be protected from massive multi-nationals and dumping, in general, free trade creates the best possible economic situation for our country.

We are a nation of exports, without them, we are 2nd-world. Who's going to take our products when we load theirs up with tariffs and other barriers? Oh wait, no one!!!

I'd really love to hear your ideas on calculating national wealth without GDP or GNP. Some 'protectionist blind-nationalist' index?"

I guess I would be calculating national wealth as an estimation of our resources, rather than as a ratio of what money is transferred in one direction to another. GDP and GNP do not take into account environmental costs of such activities, do not take into account resource depletion caused by the sell off of resources, and therefore do not give us an estimate of where we will be once those resources are gone, or simply tied into American hands because of the terms of the FTA.

I would rather be 2nd world than bankrupted by short sighted fools that can see nothing past a dollar coming into their pockets. Protectionist, you bet. I will protect my country from the empire builders. We are doing more than protecting our own butts, we are giving our kids kids a chance to have something.

[shoop]

Resources are valuable commodities, but they are commodities.

Canada's *main* economic advantage is its natural resources. That is what we must use to succeed. We fairly pay our workers too much to have a viable manufacturing sector in many fields. We do not have a domestic market large enough to pursue isolationist trade policies.

Canada *needs* to trade in order for our economy to survive/prosper. Not necessarliy with the Americans but with somebody.

Your argument points to isolationism that is simply not feasible.

What exactly are we giving our kids by reducing our status to that of a *second world* economy? (A choice you would prefer for some reason.)

I guess I would be calculating national wealth as an estimation of our resources, rather than as a ratio of what money is transferred in one direction to another. GDP and GNP do not take into account environmental costs of such activities, do not take into account resource depletion caused by the sell off of resources, and therefore do not give us an estimate of where we will be once those resources are gone, or simply tied into American hands because of the terms of the FTA.

I would rather be 2nd world than bankrupted by short sighted fools that can see nothing past a dollar coming into their pockets. Protectionist, you bet. I will protect my country from the empire builders. We are doing more than protecting our own butts, we are giving our kids kids a chance to have something.

[speaker]

Is our water a commodity? Is our agricultural soil a commodity? How about our forest soils? The wildlife?

How do you fairly pay some one too much?

We might have to take some pay cuts either through higher costs of goods, higher costs that reflect the value of the goods rather than the marketplaces ripemoff and stabem approach, or through taxes to support industry that pays full cost for their inputs.

I don't mind trading with anyone in the world including the Americans, but I don't think that Wilson got his economics in an era when externalities were recognized as part of the cost of production, and neither did the marketplace.

[scribblet]

Can we say not prepared to govern loud enough on the part of harper et al?

Love hearing people from the right defend Wilsons appointment and Emmersons crossing the floor. It shows Canadians how full of hyprocrisy the "new" CPC are. The same old lying liars as the Mulroney government was and now apparently is yet again.

Like they say politics a bit*h and you better have thick skin and not give a hoot about what people think or say. People are plain ignorant if they think the liberals have exclusive rights to scandels and backroom politics.

Wow I guess that was just a comment that says the CPC are as corrupt as they accused the Liberals of being. LOL LOL LOl LOl LOl

Sorry, but you are not making any sense.

[shoop]

You are correct. Times have changed.

But I think the U.S. is proving on the environment that a more market-based approach is the way to go.

Which country has reduced the rate of growth of their CO2 admissions approach since Kyoto was signed. The U.S. and they aren't even using that ridiculous buying credits from countries that won't comply.

What has Rick Mercer's *One Tonne Challenge* done for us? Not as much as good old financial incentives.

Maybe instead of always complaining about the Americans and feeling self-righteous we might actually want to work with them in an area they are doing better than we are in.

I don't mind trading with anyone in the world including the Americans, but I don't think that Wilson got his economics in an era when externalities were recognized as part of the cost of production, and neither did the marketplace.

[speaker]

I haven't seen any indication that America is in any way responsible for the lessening of the rate of increase in the green house gas emmissions in the USA. What financial incentives are you talking about? My understanding is that a good portion of the shift is due to American Corporations moving their consumer supply base to third world countries that are more than making up for the lessening of the rate of increase of Americas greenhouse gas emmissions.

This becomes known then as an externality. Out of sight out of mind . And if we put the right spin on it the American establishment somehow has the good fortune to be considered to have done something beneficial?

This is why governments and economics should not be left up to financial economists like Mr. Wilson.

[geoffrey]

Is our water a commodity? Is our agricultural soil a commodity? How about our forest soils? The wildlife?

How do you fairly pay some one too much?

We might have to take some pay cuts either through higher costs of goods, higher costs that reflect the value of the goods rather than the marketplaces ripemoff and stabem approach, or through taxes to support industry that pays full cost for their inputs.

I don't mind trading with anyone in the world including the Americans, but I don't think that Wilson got his economics in an era when externalities were recognized as part of the cost of production, and neither did the marketplace.

Yikes. Speaker relax, we are on the same page on most of those issues you've raise.

I personally am against any water trading because its future in Canada is unsure, long-term agreements could possibly be cripping to our supply, or screwing us out of money. It's a bad economic decision too!

I've also been outspoken on this forum about soil toxicity and deforestation at the hands of industrial development. I believe these are real environmental issues, this is where the Kyoto money should be going instead of to ridiculous CO2 limits.

Our workers aren't being paid too much or unfairly. It's just a simple fact that we've choosen to make ourselves not competitive in the manufacturing industry in exchange for higher paid workers. It's a choice we've made, and now we have to deal with it. There is a reason why automotives have to be so heavily subsidized in Canada to survive, its because the unions have created a poisionous labour situation to business. Instead, we have to move to more service based industries, which is cool with me.

I haven't seen any indication that America is in any way responsible for the lessening of the rate of increase in the green house gas emmissions in the USA. What financial incentives are you talking about? My understanding is that a good portion of the shift is due to American Corporations moving their consumer supply base to third world countries that are more than making up for the lessening of the rate of increase of Americas greenhouse gas emmissions.

This becomes known then as an externality. Out of sight out of mind . And if we put the right spin on it the American establishment somehow has the good fortune to be considered to have done something beneficial?

This is why governments and economics should not be left up to financial economists like Mr. Wilson.

The US government has done nothing on emissions, the American people have though in pressuring businesses to be more responsibile. You can be responsible and profitable. Your also right in saying that much of the pollution decrease is due to moving manufacturing overseas (because of those wages we previously mentioned).

I am an economics (energy is my focus of all things) student currently, and I've come to all these same conclusions. Don't take out the anger on all of us! There are lots of economists that do see beyond just dollar value. Lots of people lose sight of the fact that economics is a means to an end, and that end is a higher standard of living... and standard of living does go beyond how much you make.

You bring up some very important ideas on future reserves of energy and the concerns about having nothing left for future generations. Remember though, oil will only be valuable for a short time, before it becomes so expensive we move to other forms of energy! We've got a limited timeframe for extraction before it becomes worthless.

Oil is also one of the least environmentally harmful energies to extract, when from traditional sources. Oil sands are a bugger, coal is horrible and natural gas has flaring issues with sour gas which haven't been researched fully enough (though lots of oil extraction in Alberta shares these problems). Oil is one of our cleanest energy forms environmentally, at least until people drop irrational fears about nuclear power.

The problem with your approach is your trying to, using your terminology, internalise externalities to businesses. I find issue with this because these aspects of our well being are virtually priceless. I can't put a price tag on environmental destruction, can you? This makes it impossible to internalise these policies, and instead, we need to help out proactive business leaders that decide to make ethical choices in their operations... and most of these people are in the small business sector. I have faith that with the right tax system, and subsidies to companies that make ethical choices, we can all be both better off environmentally and be more wealthy!

ADDITION: Speaker, you mentioned that you'd calculate our wealth based on an estimate of our resources, and not GDP. Your partially correct... GDP is a very accurate measure of how productive the economy is, and how much money people have. Our actually inherent wealth is not at all portrayed by this. Looking at your system though, countries that have next to zero resources, say Luxembourg, would be the poorest in the world... where as countries that are underdeveloped but resource rich, say... Zaire, would be labelled as rich. There is a fundamental problem with your method.

[ritamd]

You really don't understand much, do you?

What is the *corruption*? Involved here. What inquiry proved the CPC *only* stole $3.8 million of taxpayer dollars?

Wow I guess that was just a comment that says the CPC are as corrupt as they accused the Liberals of being. LOL LOL LOl LOl LOl

What inquiry proved the Liberals stole 3.8 million? Certainly not the Gomery Inquiry. ROTFL

[scribblet]

You really don't understand much, do you?

What is the *corruption*? Involved here. What inquiry proved the CPC *only* stole $3.8 million of taxpayer dollars?

Wow I guess that was just a comment that says the CPC are as corrupt as they accused the Liberals of being. LOL LOL LOl LOl LOl

What inquiry proved the Liberals stole 3.8 million? Certainly not the Gomery Inquiry. ROTFL

The Gomery inquiry proved plenty. You can't whitewash what happened by trying to deflect the issue back to another party. ROTFLMAO

[shoop]

Wow. That proves it. You are an absolute, unabashed Liberal hack.

If Gomery hadn't proven the theft of $3.8 Million dollars of taxpayer funds by the LPC they would, sadly, still be in power today.

That you can't admit that most basic of facts is a good thing. Shows the Liberals aren't learning their lessons from this election defeat. The arrogance remains, even in opposition. Strange thing arrogance. What is their left to be arrogant about at this point?

What inquiry proved the Liberals stole 3.8 million? Certainly not the Gomery Inquiry. ROTFL

[speaker]

.

The US government has done nothing on emissions, the American people have though in pressuring businesses to be more responsibile. You can be responsible and profitable. Your also right in saying that much of the pollution decrease is due to moving manufacturing overseas (because of those wages we previously mentioned).

I am an economics (energy is my focus of all things) student currently, and I've come to all these same conclusions. Don't take out the anger on all of us! There are lots of economists that do see beyond just dollar value. Lots of people lose sight of the fact that economics is a means to an end, and that end is a higher standard of living... and standard of living does go beyond how much you make.

You bring up some very important ideas on future reserves of energy and the concerns about having nothing left for future generations. Remember though, oil will only be valuable for a short time, before it becomes so expensive we move to other forms of energy! We've got a limited timeframe for extraction before it becomes worthless.

Oil is also one of the least environmentally harmful energies to extract, when from traditional sources. Oil sands are a bugger, coal is horrible and natural gas has flaring issues with sour gas which haven't been researched fully enough (though lots of oil extraction in Alberta shares these problems). Oil is one of our cleanest energy forms environmentally, at least until people drop irrational fears about nuclear power.

The problem with your approach is your trying to, using your terminology, internalise externalities to businesses. I find issue with this because these aspects of our well being are virtually priceless. I can't put a price tag on environmental destruction, can you? This makes it impossible to internalise these policies, and instead, we need to help out proactive business leaders that decide to make ethical choices in their operations... and most of these people are in the small business sector. I have faith that with the right tax system, and subsidies to companies that make ethical choices, we can all be both better off environmentally and be more wealthy!

ADDITION: Speaker, you mentioned that you'd calculate our wealth based on an estimate of our resources, and not GDP. Your partially correct... GDP is a very accurate measure of how productive the economy is, and how much money people have. Our actually inherent wealth is not at all portrayed by this. Looking at your system though, countries that have next to zero resources, say Luxembourg, would be the poorest in the world... where as countries that are underdeveloped but resource rich, say... Zaire, would be labelled as rich. There is a fundamental problem with your method.

I didn't say that natural resources are the only resources that should be attributed to "wealth" or worth. However when you consider that lung cancer is considered a contributor to GDP through the sale of cigarettes and the hospitalization costs and desparation cures and the funerals of course..... then there is the car accidents, political contributions, environmental clean-up, et cetera. I don't think I have that fundamental problem.

It's good to hear that there are some economists who are recognizing that there is nothing external about environmental impacts. It, the damage, is all right here and we have to live with it. I've heard the argument about the pricelessness of our environment too. Usually however I hear it from people who are saying that we can't take it into account in our business decisions simply because of that. I think there are a couple of different options for determining the cost of at least some of the more major impact areas. Let's try aesthetic value of a piece of wildlife habitat, forest/ river mix, fish habitat, and someone wants to put a mine in the valley.

What you're going to do is transfer the proposal to the Elbow river valley as it goes through Calgary and see how much Calgarians are giving up so that the park doesn't get developed. Not precise but an estimate of the worth of the other valleys aesthetic worth.

I really don't understand your conclusion that oil is going to become so expensive that it will be worthless, In an effort to keep our economy from foundering we should be looking at our least expensive energy for development. Kyoto is an attempt to put a value on fossil fuel use, as one of the culprits in green house gas, Is the cost of oil way to high then? so be it. It's not that oil doesn't have that cost already, right? This is the externality that we are avoiding rather than being honest with ourselves. Maybe some of the less environmentally damaging, ie renewable, energy sources are more economically responsible already.

I don't care whether business actually pays in hard cash for the environmental damage that they would propose doing but I think it's only appropriate that when the externalities are calculated that the people affected have a commensurate impact on the decision to proceed.

[Spike22]

You really don't understand much, do you?

What is the *corruption*? Involved here. What inquiry proved the CPC *only* stole $3.8 million of taxpayer dollars?

Wow I guess that was just a comment that says the CPC are as corrupt as they accused the Liberals of being. LOL LOL LOl LOl LOl

What inquiry proved the Liberals stole 3.8 million? Certainly not the Gomery Inquiry. ROTFL

Another individual in the forum smoking da crack or smelling one. [once you come off your high - Trudeau is now out of office]

[geoffrey]

The US government has done nothing on emissions, the American people have though in pressuring businesses to be more responsibile. You can be responsible and profitable. Your also right in saying that much of the pollution decrease is due to moving manufacturing overseas (because of those wages we previously mentioned).

I am an economics (energy is my focus of all things) student currently, and I've come to all these same conclusions. Don't take out the anger on all of us! There are lots of economists that do see beyond just dollar value. Lots of people lose sight of the fact that economics is a means to an end, and that end is a higher standard of living... and standard of living does go beyond how much you make.

You bring up some very important ideas on future reserves of energy and the concerns about having nothing left for future generations. Remember though, oil will only be valuable for a short time, before it becomes so expensive we move to other forms of energy! We've got a limited timeframe for extraction before it becomes worthless.

Oil is also one of the least environmentally harmful energies to extract, when from traditional sources. Oil sands are a bugger, coal is horrible and natural gas has flaring issues with sour gas which haven't been researched fully enough (though lots of oil extraction in Alberta shares these problems). Oil is one of our cleanest energy forms environmentally, at least until people drop irrational fears about nuclear power.

The problem with your approach is your trying to, using your terminology, internalise externalities to businesses. I find issue with this because these aspects of our well being are virtually priceless. I can't put a price tag on environmental destruction, can you? This makes it impossible to internalise these policies, and instead, we need to help out proactive business leaders that decide to make ethical choices in their operations... and most of these people are in the small business sector. I have faith that with the right tax system, and subsidies to companies that make ethical choices, we can all be both better off environmentally and be more wealthy!

ADDITION: Speaker, you mentioned that you'd calculate our wealth based on an estimate of our resources, and not GDP. Your partially correct... GDP is a very accurate measure of how productive the economy is, and how much money people have. Our actually inherent wealth is not at all portrayed by this. Looking at your system though, countries that have next to zero resources, say Luxembourg, would be the poorest in the world... where as countries that are underdeveloped but resource rich, say... Zaire, would be labelled as rich. There is a fundamental problem with your method.

I didn't say that natural resources are the only resources that should be attributed to "wealth" or worth. However when you consider that lung cancer is considered a contributor to GDP through the sale of cigarettes and the hospitalization costs and desparation cures and the funerals of course..... then there is the car accidents, political contributions, environmental clean-up, et cetera. I don't think I have that fundamental problem.

It's good to hear that there are some economists who are recognizing that there is nothing external about environmental impacts. It, the damage, is all right here and we have to live with it. I've heard the argument about the pricelessness of our environment too. Usually however I hear it from people who are saying that we can't take it into account in our business decisions simply because of that. I think there are a couple of different options for determining the cost of at least some of the more major impact areas. Let's try aesthetic value of a piece of wildlife habitat, forest/ river mix, fish habitat, and someone wants to put a mine in the valley.

What you're going to do is transfer the proposal to the Elbow river valley as it goes through Calgary and see how much Calgarians are giving up so that the park doesn't get developed. Not precise but an estimate of the worth of the other valleys aesthetic worth.

I really don't understand your conclusion that oil is going to become so expensive that it will be worthless, In an effort to keep our economy from foundering we should be looking at our least expensive energy for development. Kyoto is an attempt to put a value on fossil fuel use, as one of the culprits in green house gas, Is the cost of oil way to high then? so be it. It's not that oil doesn't have that cost already, right? This is the externality that we are avoiding rather than being honest with ourselves. Maybe some of the less environmentally damaging, ie renewable, energy sources are more economically responsible already.

I don't care whether business actually pays in hard cash for the environmental damage that they would propose doing but I think it's only appropriate that when the externalities are calculated that the people affected have a commensurate impact on the decision to proceed.

I'm a big environmentalist because I personally enjoy it at least 2 days a week in the mountain parks. I know how much effort we need to put into protecting these areas. I'm just saying that any program that puts a dollar value on pollution won't work as businesses will just include it as an expense. Legal restrictions on development, ones that actually stand up, need to be in place instead. Like no development in national/provincial parks. Like no sour gas flaring (which is banned in Texas but not Alberta). Things like these are the first steps we have to make to have a clean and vibrant environment in Canada.

Alberta is the national leader in green energy suprisingly, with more power derived from wind than anywhere else in the country!

My conclusion on oil prices and its eventual invalubility is rather complex, and I really don't feel like writing out a few pages of my thoughts on this forum, so I'll try to sum it up as best I can. As oil prices continue to climb based on reduced supply and increased demand (we are nearing peak output), alternative energies become cheaper and cheaper relative to oil. When this happens, we'll obviously switch to the cheaper alternatives, eventually reducing oil demand to near zero (except for production of certain plastics which will probably stay petroleum based) and oil will become nearly worthless (compared to today's prices).

Nuclear and wind power are two very viable alternatives to fossil fuels in the very near future. In fact, they can pay for themselves over a not so distant timeframe! It's truly an exciting time when businesses can be profitable and efficient and the environment can be protected to greater extremes. It's true progress what we are seeing now, and I feel like we are going to continue towards this greater, greener and cleaner society.

[speaker]

Geoffrey wrote,

"I'm a big environmentalist because I personally enjoy it at least 2 days a week in the mountain parks. I know how much effort we need to put into protecting these areas. I'm just saying that any program that puts a dollar value on pollution won't work as businesses will just include it as an expense. Legal restrictions on development, ones that actually stand up, need to be in place instead. Like no development in national/provincial parks. Like no sour gas flaring (which is banned in Texas but not Alberta). Things like these are the first steps we have to make to have a clean and vibrant environment in Canada.

Alberta is the national leader in green energy suprisingly, with more power derived from wind than anywhere else in the country!

My conclusion on oil prices and its eventual invalubility is rather complex, and I really don't feel like writing out a few pages of my thoughts on this forum, so I'll try to sum it up as best I can. As oil prices continue to climb based on reduced supply and increased demand (we are nearing peak output), alternative energies become cheaper and cheaper relative to oil. When this happens, we'll obviously switch to the cheaper alternatives, eventually reducing oil demand to near zero (except for production of certain plastics which will probably stay petroleum based) and oil will become nearly worthless (compared to today's prices).

Nuclear and wind power are two very viable alternatives to fossil fuels in the very near future. In fact, they can pay for themselves over a not so distant timeframe! It's truly an exciting time when businesses can be profitable and efficient and the environment can be protected to greater extremes. It's true progress what we are seeing now, and I feel like we are going to continue towards this greater, greener and cleaner society." ....

Me too, although I try not to sound like a poster boy for Chairman Mao when I talk about it.

You may be right about the future of supply and demand for oil, I'm just wondering if there is anything about future option value taught these days about resources like oil in economics class? If we don't recognize that oil is actually more expensive than we are paying now, because of the other values which it's overuse is impacting, and in some way have business pass on those costs as expenses we face, we are ripping off our kids and our grand kids.

This is the economics that a large part of Wilsons generation of economists some how missed. This is why Canada should send someone to the States who is able to use his major ability in a positive way for Canada.