Conservative Environment Policy Ver. 6.03 (Beta)

[August1991]

The Conservative government is clamping down on the emissions produced by average consumer goods — from cars to dishwashers — under a new environmental plan released Thursday.

The federal plan requires all cars and light trucks built after 2011 to meet new fuel-efficiency standards, which have not yet been set. Eventually vehicles like motorcycles, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles will be regulated too.

The government also wants to create and improve emissions standards for items like dishwashers, dehumidifiers, hot tubs and gas-fired furnaces.

CBC

I used to worry that I had voted for the Liberals. Now I'm worried that I voted for the CPSU. These guys want to regulate everything.

And then Baird has the audacity to lie:

Environment Minister John Baird said despite the inclusion of consumer goods in the plan, it will not take a financial toll on the average Canadian.

"That average middle-class family in Quebec, in British Columbia, in Ontario or out east shouldn't be asked to kick in support to help a polluter," Baird told CBC News after he announced his plan in Toronto.

Who is going to pay for the bureaucracy to administer these regulations? Who is going to pay the extra compliance costs these regulations impose on industry? Whose time will be taken up reading all these instructions?

I think the Tories just talked themselves out of a majority government. Not because this latest "green plan" is bad (although it is). The Tories won't get a majority because Harper has the mind of a micro-manager. He's a detail guy who likes arcane instructions. Stephen Harper seems to have the mind of a 1980s computer programmer.

Terence Corcoran has it right:

We have seen the Torygreen future for Canadians: Locked in a bathroom lit by a compact fluorescent bulb using one sheet of toilet paper and doing our business into a biodegradable plastic bag while a government inspector waits to come in to test the indoor air for pollutants.

After last week producing a sound and lucid report on how Canada's Kyoto carbon emission targets were unworkable and economically dangerous, the Conservatives yesterday set course for even greater lunacy than Kyoto, led by John Baird, the Environment Minister. In a speech that even Sheila Copps in full discombobulated flight could not have delivered, Sheila Baird invented, distorted, misrepresented and fabricated his way to a potential regulatory nightmare.

[Riverwind]

I used to worry that I had voted for the Liberals. Now I'm worried that I voted for the CPSU. These guys want to regulate everything.

Emitting GHGs costs nothing unless the government waves it magic regulatory wand and says it costs something. If you accept that GHGs are an issue then regulation is the _only_ way to do anything about it because individuals have no incentive to limit their emissions on their own.

[August1991]

If you accept that GHGs are an issue then regulation is the _only_ way to do anything about it because individuals have no incentive to limit their emissions on their own.

Strictly speaking, you are right.

But it's how we set the incentive that matters.

There's a world of difference between a regulation that says you cannot drive a car if you are 15 years old and a regulation that says you can drive a car if you're 16 years old and if you pay a $500 monthly insurance premium. The difference concerns choice.

We collectively own the environment and only the government can act as our agent in letting people use this collective resource. The government can fix arcane rules on how to use it or it can simply charge people for using it. Politicians will soon discover that the latter option is easier, and also generates vote-friendly revenues. It also gives people choice.

Regulations remove choice.

[Riverwind]

The government can fix arcane rules on how to use it or it can simply charge people for using it. Politicians will soon discover that the latter option is easier, and also generates vote-friendly revenues.

I fail to see the difference between a $1000/incandescent bulb tax and an outright ban. However, an outright ban is much easier to enforce which should make it the preferred approach for someone who wants minimal government.

You might say a $1000/bulb tax is excessive, however, others would disagree. We could set up a blue ribbon scientific panel to determine the true 'GHG cost' of each good, however, that would mean more bureaucracy and arcane regulations.

There is no simply solution to GHG that will not involve bureaucracy and taking choices away from people (making a good too expensive for the average person does deny them the choice).

[Charles Anthony]

I fail to see the difference between a $1000/incandescent bulb tax and an outright ban.

-- because you fail to justify why you are limiting your choices to only a tax or a ban on incandescent bulbs. There are more choices.

You have to justify why you are indirectly targetting incandescent bulbs as opposed to more directly targetting green-house gases.

[August1991]

I fail to see the difference between a $1000/incandescent bulb tax and an outright ban. However, an outright ban is much easier to enforce which should make it the preferred approach for someone who wants minimal government.

Really? Is an outright ban easier to enforce? (And where'd you get the $1000 number?)

We tax cigarettes and alcohol but we have an outright ban on marijuana. Which "regulation" is easier to enforce (and has fewer consequences)?

I'll agree though that we should not tax murder - O. J. Simpson is a case in point.

You might say a $1000/bulb tax is excessive, however, others would disagree. We could set up a blue ribbon scientific panel to determine the true 'GHG cost' of each good, however, that would mean more bureaucracy and arcane regulations.

A blue ribbon panel to determine the right tax is not the same as an army of bureaucrats to check on compliance.

There is no simply solution to GHG that will not involve bureaucracy and taking choices away from people (making a good too expensive for the average person does deny them the choice).

On the contrary, the solution to environmental protection is all about choices. How much do people alive today want to give up so that their children, grandchildren and grandchildren's children can have good lives?

Most people choose to work hard, save, educate their children and leave an inheritance to them. Most parents think about these choices carefully.

Unfortunately, they have no way to make similar choices about our collective environment. Environmental regulations don't give them the choice either. Regulation is not a practical way to protect the environment for the future.

----

To return to the OP, I think Harper has made a serious error in presenting this umpteenth "Green Plan". He risks becoming an object of ridicule (how many green plans is that now?), he risks losing his ideological base (more regulations?), he is letting his penchant to micro-manage take over.

I have been impressed with Harper's instincts for getting potential Tory voters in English-Canadian and Quebec.

On the environment file, when he switched Baird for Ambrose, I thought he understood it mattered. Now, with this latest Green Plan, I wonder whether Harper's losing his touch.

[Riverwind]

Really? Is an outright ban easier to enforce? (And where'd you get the $1000 number?)

What is easier depends on the product. Demand for tobacco/alcohol/drugs is fueled by biological addictions which makes a ban hard to enforce. Most other products do not have level of demand which makes bans a lot easier to enforce. I picked an deliberately absurd price to demonstrate that tax incentives can be as abitrary and punative as outright bans.

A blue ribbon panel to determine the right tax is not the same as an army of bureaucrats to check on compliance.

The GST is a relatively simply tax for businesses: a single rate for all goods + a few exemptions. A 'GHG impact tax' would be a nightmare to track and enforce. I think it would be a lot easier to ban certain products than to determine whether the merchant is collecting the correct amount of tax for the 1000s of products that they might sell.

Regulation is not a practical way to protect the environment for the future.

A carbon tax is simply a form of regulation.

[Charles Anthony]

A carbon tax is simply a form of regulation.

It is more than a semantic difference: it is a price. Thus, it creates an incentive to shift away from consuming "carbon" products with a different bureaucracy.

[dpwozney]

"Opposition parties will not have an opportunity to vote on the new scheme: it will be undertaken purely through regulatory changes that do not require their support", according to Jennifer Ditchburn, Canadian Press in this article.

Regulatory changes constitute the making of laws. Without the consent and support of Parliament, what legal mandate do such envisioned regulatory changes have?

Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 states: “It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.

[Argus]

The Conservative government is clamping down on the emissions produced by average consumer goods — from cars to dishwashers — under a new environmental plan released Thursday.

The government is simply responding to the demands of Canadians - especially Quebecers, who seem to like telling pollsters that they want to meet Kyoto goals and want to lower emissions and want to clean up the environment. You can't do that without all kinds of rules and regulations.

[jdobbin]

Baird is trying to blame all on the Liberals at the moment.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070427/..._emissions_plan

Baird faced a battery of criticism one day after unveiling emissions regulations he calls a "middle ground" between industry and environmental concerns.

The minister pointed fingers at the previous Liberal government for not reining in greenhouse gases and the Ontario Liberal government for not delivering on an election promise to close coal-fired electricity plants.

Baird was confronted earlier at the show by environmentalist David Suzuki, who cut a path through the crowd to tell the minister the plan was "disappointment."

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, also at the show, says the Tory plan falls short of Canadian expectations and that Ontario intends to go further.

I was no fan of the previous Liberal governments slow response but Baird is making no one happy with his plan so far.

[Riverwind]

I was no fan of the previous Liberal governments slow response but Baird is making no one happy with his plan so far.

The previous Liberal governments did nothing because they knew it would be impossible to cut GHGs without making a lot of people unhappy. Meeting Kyoto targets by 2008 is impossible and only the most deluded fanactics believe in them anymore. Baird's approach is pragmatic an could work.

[White Doors]

I am no fan of the current global warming religious cult, but I like this legislation.

Will go a long way to reducing smog and the real pollutants. Slick Harper is. He has always wanted to cut down on air POLLUTION and he packages it up as a GHG reduction when it is really anti-pollution legislation.

I like it overall.

making no one happy with his plan so far.

When critics on both sides are complaining it is surely the sign they got it right.

[jdobbin]

The previous Liberal governments did nothing because they knew it would be impossible to cut GHGs without making a lot of people unhappy. Meeting Kyoto targets by 2008 is impossible and only the most deluded fanactics believe in them anymore. Baird's approach is pragmatic an could work.

Barring a recession, Baird's approach will probably see a steady rise in emissions. That's how pragmatic it looks.

[Riverwind]

Barring a recession, Baird's approach will probably see a steady rise in emissions. That's how pragmatic it looks.

Which is the only practical option at this time for an energy exporting country with a growing population. There will be opportunities in the future to further tighten limits as industry adjusts. I don't see how anyone could have done any better.

[jdobbin]

When critics on both sides are complaining it is surely the sign they got it right.

No, that's usually when you drop in the polls because no one thinks you got it right.

[Argus]

The previous Liberal governments did nothing because they knew it would be impossible to cut GHGs without making a lot of people unhappy. Meeting Kyoto targets by 2008 is impossible and only the most deluded fanactics believe in them anymore. Baird's approach is pragmatic an could work.

Barring a recession, Baird's approach will probably see a steady rise in emissions. That's how pragmatic it looks.

We're adding at least a quarter million new citizens every year. How do you expect to easily and quickly reduce overall emissions?

[jdobbin]

We're adding at least a quarter million new citizens every year. How do you expect to easily and quickly reduce overall emissions?

Is that what the right wing is preparing to blame for a rise in emissions?

[Argus]

We're adding at least a quarter million new citizens every year. How do you expect to easily and quickly reduce overall emissions?

Is that what the right wing is preparing to blame for a rise in emissions?

How do you, at the same time as you are growing in size, drastically lower emissions without heavily damaging the economy?

Don't look to Europe. They never had to work with the problems we have. And their goals, by and large, are far easier to meet even without taking into consideration are growing population, our oil sector and the weather up here.

I like the idea of reducing smog and air pollution. Apparently you people on the Left actually LIKE smog for some reason.

Like the idiotic Ontario government, which has the continent's worst polluting power plants and whose spokesperson recently was aghast at the idea of cleaning them up because it wouldn't reduce GHG emissions, just air pollution.

[jdobbin]

I like the idea of reducing smog and air pollution. Apparently you people on the Left actually LIKE smog for some reason.

Like the idiotic Ontario government, which has the continent's worst polluting power plants and whose spokesperson recently was aghast at the idea of cleaning them up because it wouldn't reduce GHG emissions, just air pollution.

If the right wants to have an anti-smog policy it should make an anti-smog policy.

It isn't an emission policy.

[geoffrey]

If the right wants to have an anti-smog policy it should make an anti-smog policy.

It isn't an emission policy.

Why not kill two bird with one stones? That's about as much of emissions reductions that are reasonable given the economic cost. I'm not willing to pay more. We'll have seriously reduced emissions intensity, which is what really matter. Cleaner fuels are good, less fuels just mean people out of jobs and an even lower standard of living. Anyone that thinks that hard caps are better than intensity targets is crazy. I want the economy to be able to grow. Some don't. Personally, I like have a job and not being on EI.

What's your take on the issue? How do you propose reducing the economy by many percentage points a year and keeping your job?

[jdobbin]

Why not kill two bird with one stones? That's about as much of emissions reductions that are reasonable given the economic cost. I'm not willing to pay more. We'll have seriously reduced emissions intensity, which is what really matter. Cleaner fuels are good, less fuels just mean people out of jobs and an even lower standard of living. Anyone that thinks that hard caps are better than intensity targets is crazy. I want the economy to be able to grow. Some don't. Personally, I like have a job and not being on EI.

What's your take on the issue? How do you propose reducing the economy by 10 or more percent a year and keeping your job?

The Tories have tried to make clean water and air sound like an emissions policy. It isn't.

I've already said that what I think would be a good policy is to get the coal fired plants off line in favour of a east-west power grid consisting of hydro power. That would create tens of thousands of jobs.

[geoffrey]

I've already said that what I think would be a good policy is to get the coal fired plants off line in favour of a east-west power grid consisting of hydro power. That would create tens of thousands of jobs.

That's a possible step. You do realise that electrical transmission is highly inefficient? I'm saying it actually takes power plants worth of power to send electricity relatively short distances. Apparently, the 500kV development between Calgary and Edmonton will save a reported 1,200MW of power annually, or about one mid-sized coal generator, in tranmissions savings over the current setup.

That's 300km. And you want to move electricity over 1000... 2000km?

Yikes.

People have this notion that you can build a plant in the middle of nowhere and send all the electricity cost free to wherever. I'm telling that transmission is expensive to build, expensive to maintain and it uses a great deal of power in line loss. I'd like to see the costs before I was convinced on any development that way.

[jdobbin]

That's a possible step. You do realise that electrical transmission is highly inefficient? I'm saying it actually takes power plants worth of power to send electricity relatively short distances. Apparently, the 500kV development between Calgary and Edmonton will save a reported 1,200MW of power annually, or about one mid-sized coal generator, in tranmissions savings over the current setup.

That's 300km. And you want to move electricity over 1000... 2000km?

Yikes.

People have this notion that you can build a plant in the middle of nowhere and send all the electricity cost free to wherever. I'm telling that transmission is expensive to build, expensive to maintain and it uses a great deal of power in line loss. I'd like to see the costs before I was convinced on any development that way.

I never said it was free. Hydro in Canada routinely goes long distances. There is a lot of line loss as you say but once built it isn't as expensive as other power sources to maintain.

You asked for a policy that would indeed reduce emissions and not result in loss of jobs. This is one of those policies.

Another policy which would reduce emissions and save Canadians billions would be to legislate that new sub-divisions be required to build a certain amount of geo-thermal heating and cooling.

[geoffrey]

I'm in agreement on both then.

I'm a little concerned with Bairds inability to stress how important the smog/pollutant reduction measures are. Cutting asthma (and likely cancer) rates is huge, and will save the health care system billions, not to mention elimate all that lost productivity, ect..

If I were Baird, I'd be stressing this to the media. Any parent with a kid with asthma would be all over that. Cutting smog and pollutants by 50% is huge in my opinion. Let's do that too.