[Section 15] Does Harper think The Economist to be crazy?

It's Harper who must be crazy.

Harper's very much on record calling Dion's Green shift crazy:

"Mr. Dion's policies are, as I said, crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy. " - Prime Minister Stephen Harper, June 19, 2008

And yet, what's the cover editorial of the latest issue of the Economist about? Read the conclusion for yourself (emphasis mine):

The best thing that rich-world governments can do is to encourage the alternatives by taxing carbon (even knowing that places like China and India will not) and removing subsidies that favour fossil fuels. Competition should do the rest—for the fledgling firms of the alternative-energy industry are in competition with each other as much as they are with the incumbent fossil-fuel companies. Let a hundred flowers bloom. When they have, China, too, may find some it likes the look of. Therein lies the best hope for the energy business, and the planet.

Harper, of course, knows that Dion's Green Shift plan is a reasonable idea. He's just shooting down tax shifting because if Dion can sell it, Harper will never sit in the PM's chair again.

I guess Harper must be cancelling his subscription about right now.

H/T Sober Second Thoughts.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/29/2008 09:25:00 PM

[Section 15] JPL's Climate Change Machine

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has placed an interactive climate change application online. It lets you view changes in the Arctic polar cap, sea level changes over the Pacific, CO2 emissions and the changes in average global temperature.

Play with it!

Here's a few images I grabbed.



Yes, that's our northern polar ice cap melting. The red outline is where the ice cap was at the end of summer, 1979. The ice cap seen is its extent at the end of summer, 2007.

It is believed that the ice cap may completely melt by the end of this summer (CTV).

I am sadly amused by denialists who claim that thickening ice during the winter 'proves' global warming to be a sham.

The temperature record from 1990 to 2007 is shocking:



--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/29/2008 01:09:00 PM

[Section 15] Beehive killoffs accelerating

Our bees are dying.

One out of three commercial bee hives in the US were lost last year due to mysterious circumstances.

Colony collapse disorder is what they call it, and there's no answers in sight. First blamed on mites, speculation has moved on to new bacterias (or revisiting old), GM crops, climate change, and, for all I know, space aliens.

The point is, not enough is being done. We depend on bees for the pollination of our crops. It's time to get a move on.

See McClatchy for more.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/27/2008 11:12:00 AM

[Section 15] Libertarians as Anarchists

In a comments discussion over at Runesmiths blog, I said:

True libertarianism is about having THE PORTION YOU ARE DUE. The brand of libertarians you are dealing with are interested in whatever they can steal.

Don't expect them to debate rationally. That's not what they are trying to do. These guys have the mindset of robber barons and con artists. Caveat emptor applies.

I'm not in the green party any more, but quite a few greens are libertarians who woke up. They figured out that social and environmental debts and deficits damage liberty as much as fiscal ones.

...A lot of these 'libertarians' aren't. They actually espouse many anarchistic beliefs.

For example, a typical libertarian would blow your head off for dumping garbage on their land (trespassing and vandalism). So why should they accept a coal plant upwind dumping mercury on their land? Or human-induced climate change altering their land?

Since their much-loved political and social philosophy can't deal with these realities (that is, they fail to account for externalities), they go into a state of denial. To admit that these externalities must be dealt with is to admit that their simplistic philosophy is wrong.

Those libertarians who recognize the problem, but still don't want to adjust their behaviour, are actually moving away from libertarianism into the open arms of anarchy.

I'll be expanding on the themes I raised above on another date. Be on the lookout for a future post named

My Name is Mark Francis, and I am a Libertarian

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/25/2008 03:34:00 PM

[Section 15] Glee!

Black loses U.S. appeal

I'm sure he'll keep appealing. In the meantime, glee!

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/25/2008 01:20:00 PM

[Section 15] Dear Ed: Reduce emissions or lose business

Never mind the Liberal's Green Shift plan, there are significant forward-thinking groups which are actually refusing to buy tar sands oil. Another one announced today:

U.S. mayors have become the latest group trying to reduce the use of gasoline made with oil from Alberta's oilsands. A resolution has passed at their annual conference in Miami that urges cities to forbid the use of such gasoline in municipal vehicles.

Get with the program, Stelmach.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/23/2008 03:03:00 PM

[Section 15] Stelmach hits the nail right through his thumb

From the CBC:

'My greatest fear is for those on fixed income, because your heating costs will go up. Just visiting your grandkids, you know, the fuel for the car will go up.'—Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach

Ignoring for the moment that Dion's Green Shift will not be taxing gasoline further, Stelmach is arguing by default that it's wrong to up the cost of carbon-polluting fuels, but that it's fine to make those precious grandkids spend their renewable resource-poor lives paying for the ills of previous generations.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/23/2008 01:21:00 PM

[Section 15] Liberals to also Implement Cap-and-Trade

With all the focus on the Liberal's release of their new carbon tax shift policies, one could be forgiven to think that there's no intent by the Liberals to introduce a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system in Canada, as pushed by the NDP and (sort of) by the Conservatives.

In fact, the plan is to get one rolling, but as it will take a few years to accomplish any significant emission reductions using cap-and-trade, the carbon tax shift is the logical one to implement first, as it is far easier to get up and running.

Yes, Jack Layton, you disagree. I know. But without the US having a cap-and-trade system in place (last week's attempt to legislate one failed), and with the EU's system still in some disarray (here and here), there's not yet much of a reliable international emissions market to plug into. Yes, I do think that the EU will succeed in implementing one.

The Liberal Green Shift plan can be read here (pdf).

Here's the relevant section (page 22), explaining that cap-and-trade is still in the works:

A year ago, the Liberal Party introduced the Carbon Budget, a strong cap-and-trade plan to put a price on carbon, boost green investment, and create a carbon market. A Liberal government will work with other jurisdictions, including the United States, to establish a solid cap-and-trade system as stronger carbon markets develop. We will continue to be guided by the principles of the Carbon Budget: absolute emission reductions, increased investment in green technology, and harnessing the power of the market to fight climate change.

However, more than two wasted years of Conservative government, combined with the message of urgency coming from scientists, means that we must put a price on carbon as soon as possible. Since a cap-and-trade system will take several years to build, we will start with a broad-based, revenue neutral carbon tax that can be implemented quickly and simply, that will cover approximately 75 per cent of domestic emissions.

So, cap-and-trade under the Liberals will be done as well.

The NDP are transfixed on only having a cap-and-trade system. That party needs to take a second look at a carbon tax shift. Social democrats in Europe have embraced it along with a cap-and-trade market. Why not the NDP?

The carbon tax shift is not about creating an alternative to cap-and-trade. It's about implementing a parallel policy that has the capacity to put more control over economic forces in people's hands. It's about kick starting industry to sooner adopt carbon emissions reduction strategies, which will only benefit Canada as it enters the emerging global carbon emissions trading market at a later date.

---
Addendum:

The Conservatives, of course, favour a greenwashing system, which allows for emissions to actually increase -- the famous 'intensity targets', a PR spin first introduced by US Republican spin doctor Frank Lunzt. (Behind the link, you'll find him recanting his earlier 'work.') Until the Conservative recant intensity targets themselves, they have no substantial policy to add to the debate.

Muzzling Baird, or at least sending him to an anger management class, would be a decent start.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/20/2008 07:15:00 AM

[Section 15] The Green Shift Dot CA

The Liberal's Green Shift plan is now online at TheGreenShift.ca

The policy explanation is in a pdf here.

I'm in for a $200/month savings. It's hard to tell how much the carbon tax will erode it; however, as a low carbon emitter, I hope to reap some benefit here.

I don't even have time for writing down my complete first impressions, but will say that this seems to be a good plan. As for the PR battle, we'll see soon enough who wins: The NDP, who seem to want to adopt an approach which has so far failed in the EU; or the Conservatives, who have no plan, and who will just continue to lie, lie, lie about everything.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/19/2008 01:00:00 PM

[Section 15] Renaming the WikiMinister

The Edmonton Journal, via Michael Geist, has suggested a new moniker for Minister Jim Prentice, who is apparently in charge of dismantling our Fair Use rights: The WikiMinister.

Employees under Prentice appear to have been favourably editing Prentice's wiki entry, of late, as previously reported by Michael Geist.

I have to respectfully disagree with this proposed moniker. Wikis are a good thing, relying considerably upon -- you guessed it -- copyright Fair Use. May I suggest a few better titles, suitable for a Fair Use-denying, wiki bending front bencher? How about

The DISEMBLERMINISTER
The DISINFOMINISTER

Any more ideas?

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/10/2008 03:24:00 PM

[Section 15] Five feet of bigotry

Kathy Shaidle, of the blog Five Feet of Fury, and one of the defendants named in Richard Warman's libel suit, has posted a truly bigoted rant against Muslims.

I won't link to her blog. I refuse to up her site ranking. But I have posted below two screen captures covering the whole post.

Her distilled bigoted rant? 9/11 was really bad, so all Muslims should accept hatred. And, oh yeah, all Muslims can't build, let alone fly, air planes. And you're lucky things haven't gotten worse for you here in Canada -- Yet.

And so on.

I'm not shocked. This has been clear about her for a while. I just wonder how many people are reading her blog, nodding their heads?






--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/09/2008 11:07:00 AM

[Section 15] Religulous

Bill Maher takes on religion the world over in this coming movie. Directed by Larry Charles director of BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN.

Looks great so far... unless you're religious. If you are, I suggest you otherwise pray for my soul. Don't expect any improvement, though.



--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/08/2008 09:59:00 AM

[Section 15] Please finish the following sentence:

"I swear, if the liberals abstain -- yet again -- in order to avoid an election, I'm going to..."

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/07/2008 02:16:00 PM

[Section 15] Harper, drop the lawsuit: G&M OpEd

An op-ed in today's Globe and Mail by lawyer William Caplan presents an argument hardly supportive of the Liberals, yet still calls for Harper to drop his libel suit against the Liberal Party, citing the House as being the proper place for the dispute, and calls the move to squash the tape recording a strategic flop.

I have a few qualms about how Caplan presents the manner, but no problem with his conclusions: this stuff belongs in the House, not buried in a courthouse. We, the people, are not served by sub judice.

So, what in Caplan's piece bother me? A number of things.

Harper still refuses, despite repeated questioning, to explain what he meant on the tape by "financial considerations." This is not the action of a person worried about their reputation, and has kept the rest of us wondering what went on. I'm prepared to believe that Harper knew nothing about a bribe as it may have happened, but until he answers that question directly, I'm still wondering. Indeed, I'm wondering more and more.

The Canadian public does not flock to the Liberal Party website for news (nor to the Conservative website, thank God -- is it run by stoned frat boys?). Any damage done to his reputation was done by CPAC, CBC, CTV et al. running the contents of the Question Periods later reprinted on the LPC website. Suing the Liberals over the contents of a clearly partisan website largely repeating some exchanges of a Question period or two already broadcast all over Canada is just plain silly.

And there is legal precedent in Ontario, admittedly a little remote from this case, which supports politicians repeating libel outside the House without legal penalty.

And I don't think that Cadman's credibility is seriously damaged by his not bringing the matter of the bribe up off of his deathbed. What he said then was for private consumption. Who would want to spend the last few months of their life embroiled in scandal?

And Harper has admitted being told of the bribe attempt by Donna Cadman, years ago. What did he do about it? Apparently, nothing, other then to swear to Cadman's widow that it wasn't true (how would be know for sure?). The CPC actually issued a press statement indicating this. I was amazed they admitted it.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives publish crap like this and this, not to mention those defamatory television ads, all quite actionable under Canada's libel law. Not that I advocate such suits, but, trust me, I know libel law. It can be done.

This is a public matter, and the people should decide, not a judge.


Thank you, Mr. Caplan, for reminding us how democracy works best.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 05:32:00 PM

[Section 15] Harper's transit tax rebate inefficient

After cancelling all kinds of carbon-reduction programs, one of the replacement programs harper introduced was the transit tax rebate, which granted some tax deduction for purchasing transit passes.

Although the idea isn't a bad one (greens have pushed for it), the plan was viewed not as beneficial as other potential endeavours. Many pointed out that public transit needs improving and expansion, so why not use that money (estimated at $200 million) on transit funding... or a thousand other worthy projects? And why cut great programs like Energuide (since somewhat restored) when there's this much money around?

It wasn't lost on some of us that this rebate would be made known over and over again to each and every Canadian by the government, transit systems and even your accountant/tax filer. To me, that seemed to be the real clincher: Though argued to be inefficient and not that effective, its ubiquitous result would portray Harper as both a tax fighter and a green politician.

Well, the naysayers have been verified. The rebate program is woefully inadequate and is very expensive for what carbon reductionss we get out of it?:

...figures in the new plan estimate that it will be six times weaker, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming, than what the government had estimated in its last review from August 2007.

Matthew Bramley, the director of climate change policy at the Pembina Institute, calculated that the new estimates for the public transit incentive program translate into a cost of $7,419 per tonne of reduced emissions or about $35,700 for each car that is taken off the road. The average Canadian produces about 23 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year, according to Statistics Canada.

This always was more about Harper greenwashing himself than anything else.

The article also exposes other failures of Harper's 'green' policies:

The new plan also estimates that regulations requiring more biofuels content in gasoline and diesel will result in a reduction of about 1.8 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2010, even though the government had estimated last year that the regulations would be three times more effective.

The phase out of incandescent light bulbs is estimated to result in an emissions reduction of four million tonnes, according to the new plan, which is 50 per cent less than the reduction estimated in 2007.

Sadly, I'm not surprised.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 02:38:00 PM

[Section 15] Introducing the ECO wiki

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has started up a wiki. Though sparse in content, I'm told a lot of content in on the way.

Though public access, it cannot be publicly edited. The idea is for the various analysts within the Commissioner's office to post their work as it becomes available, to be read by informed stakeholders. Though not the intended target, intelligent bloggers (not the other kind) intent on finding news before it happens may find this a useful resource for environmental issues in Ontario.

So far, last year's annual report is up. It alone is an eye opener.

I've added it to my sidebar.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 02:05:00 PM

[Section 15] US Cap and Trade Senate bill defeated

I had mixed feelings about this bill. It failed. Oh well.

From TorStar:

WASHINGTON–Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president.

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote, prompting Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the legislation from consideration.

The Senate debate focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs of putting a price on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas that comes from burning fossil fuels. Opponents said it would lead to higher energy costs.

Nice as it sounds, the proposal fell short of what is necessary, but would be superior to what is in place now: nothing! The economic impact argument was a red herring -- the expected costs would constrain the US economy by only a few months over a period of decades -- if you buy into that premise. The costs of global warming exist whether you count them or not.

Missed by many, though, was that buried in the bill was an allocation of subsidy for building nuclear plants. The subsidy amount? Try $544 billion -- that's right, BILLION.

$544 BILLION. For. Nuclear.

Despite how this is being reported, the bill was being squeezed from both sides. Organizations, such as NIRS we're opposed to this bill, though they favour carbon reduction.

Read more at Common Dreams.

Not in attendance were notable senators Obama, Clinton and McCain, though they supported the bill with letters.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 01:42:00 PM

[Section 15] test

test

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/03/2008 10:52:00 AM

[Section 15] Democracy at work?

From the Wise Law Blog, a glimpse of American democracy at work:

Florida... Under the compromise, Mrs. Clinton is to receive 52.5 delegates, John Edwards 6.5 delegates, and Mr. Obama to receive 33.5 delegate votes - all of which will receive one-half value. Unpledged superdelegate votes also are reduced to only one-half weight.

Is this good? Bad? Is this even in English?

It's no wonder people are claiming there's irregularities and favourtism going on. The system is impenetrable.

Of course, Clinton's ongoing march of the dead isn't helping any.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/01/2008 08:58:00 AM