Shifting or Shafted ??

This isn't a journal suggesting action, or pumping a party. It's a rumination of the centrepiece of the Liberal platform - the Green Shift.

Dion says it it can be summarized in 6 words - “cut income taxes, shift to pollution.”.

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

H. L. Mencken

If I were in Dion's shoes I wouldn't be so naive as to tell the truth. His 6 word summary of Green Shift is the truth. The Green Party's plan is similar to Dion's. A carbon tax is in place in Denmark and in B.C. Opinions vary on how effectivly the Denmark and other European schemes work. The Green Shift is not perfect but it's more honest than the Con plan ( details and cost projections for which have yet to be released - surprised ?? )

An article on European carbon taxes in the NY Times and a critique of the article from "www.carbontax.org", which seems like a pretty good resource on the subject.

Here's another quote by Mencken

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

I always liked and was frightened by that one.

Here's another

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."

That solution, the Con solution, would be to reduce the excise tax on diesel fuel by 2 cents a litre. Does anyone think that the oil companies will pass that reduction on to consumers ?? The price at the pumps recently jumped by 12 cents in my neighbourhood ( speculation on damage to refineries by Hurricane Ike ). A 2 cent reduction, even if we did see it, is swallowed up by typical market fluctuations. Reducing the cost of a product will lead to increased sales of said product. Mother Earth wants to see less fossil fuels burned. All Harper is doing is saying what needs to be said to make the sale ( get a majority ). He doesn't have your, or the planets, best interests at heart.

The Con plan, by their own admission, will raise the cost of electricity and other fuels.

Strong environmental regulation to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollutants will inevitably come at a cost – and those costs will be borne, at least in part, by individual Canadians and their families.

The Libs say they will make carbon taxes revenue neutral. A better deal, IMO, than what Cons are offering.

Lets see if you can guess who is behind these snippets:

The Liberal Green Shift plan will also be Dion’s greatest test of leadership since winning the Liberal Leadership Convention. Even if the plan is judged sound and the need exists, can he effectively persuade voters and can he withstand a well-financed and likely fierce Conservative counter-attack?

NikontheNumbers

---------

The Liberal carbon tax will a) plunge the country into recession, b) undermine national unity, c) make everything more expensive, or d) probably not be any more economically damaging than the Tory or NDP green plan.
If you answered either a), b) or c), then you've probably been listening to Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper recently.

...

But what evidence is there to support these apocalyptic predictions?
In Harper's case, we have to take him at his word as a politician and economist. There seems to be no explanation of where Harper's visceral hatred of carbon taxes comes from, other than sheer political partisanship.

...

For Harper to claim that the carbon tax will destroy the economy, or break up the country, for crying out loud, is taking political rhetoric to a new low, even one noted for defecating puffins.
It smacks of demagoguery and, worse yet, desperation.

Bruce Johnstone in The Leader-Post

----------

The best part of the Liberal Green Shift is that Dion has called for an adult debate on a real problem, planet threatening greenhouse gas emissions. Canada needs to have that debate. Personal attacks on other party leaders weaken democracy. Shouting falsehoods about a tax grab as the government has done, probably rules out the Conservatives from participating seriously in national discussions, but such debates can go ahead, with or without Stephen Harper.

Duncan Cameron at Rabble. He doesn't like the Green Shift, but I sense he thinks it's a step in the right direction. An interesting read.

---------

The willingness to tax pollution and transfer the revenues to individuals and businesses ready to invest in “green” habits and technologies is leadership. Simplifying the message to “tax or no tax?” belittles substantive arguments about what the tax aims to achieve.

...

Yet, our own prime minister plumbs the depths of intellectual dishonesty as he bellicosely derides the ‘Green Shift’ as the ‘Green Shaft.’ Let’s forget for a minute that our PM is criticizing policy with sodomy references.

Martlet - The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper

---------

The environmental plan Dion presented is also woefully incomplete. While it’s true that when greenhouse gases are reduced, water and air cleanliness will also improve, he didn’t lay out any specific plans to directly target these problems. It also would have been a welcome announcement to hear about ideas to further regulate fuel efficiency standards for automakers so that they were closer to European standards than our hummer-driving neighbours to the south. While the carbon tax will be beneficial if it goes as planned, environmentalism goes far beyond creating tax incentives to release less carbon dioxide.

...

While there are some problems with the carbon tax plan, it has not gone untested. Similar work has been done in many other countries—such as Denmark, Sweden, and Finland—with fairly positive results. Dion’s plan appears, at the very least, to be far superior to Prime Minister Harper’s half-hearted commitments to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050.

...

While Dion’s environmental policy has flaws, it does deserve consideration from those who are concerned about climate change. As in the Liberals’ plan, flaws will likely become apparent as each party presents their environmental pitch this fall, leaving us to choose the least of many evils.

This is from a post titled "Liberal Green Shift is woefully inadequate and economically flawed" on 'The Gateway' - the official newspaper of the university of alberta. Such is the state of student journalism that the summation contradicts the title.

----------

So, the companies who currently don’t make any profit but pump all kinds of chemicals into our atmosphere and drinking water should be taxed heavily in order to pay for the eventual cleanup that has to be done, instead of giving them some kind of exemption because they don’t make any profits… That would also give an incentive to companies who pollute to clean themselves up IF they choose to remain here. If they don’t stay in Canada, then good riddance, we like our rivers and forests to retain their “earth tone” colours… Not all fuschia.

...

Climate change is not like most other environmental problems (e.g., ozone depletion, acid rain) where you have a limited number of sources. With climate change, everyone’s an emitter. The solution is tantalizingly simple: reduce the use of fossil fuels.
...
This plan would be a move in the right direction, the only problem is that it doesn’t go far enough

...

I’m still digesting the tax plan, but at this point (despite my reluctance to support the Liberals [not that I'm a fan of Harper's govt' either]) I would suggest it’s a good plan.

The above are in the comments to an article - snippet below

As the “green shift” proposes to refund the carbon tax in the form of income tax cuts, the policy amounts to increasing the tax on consumption while offering an equivalent cut on income. Canadians who save a significant portion of their income are likely to benefit from this policy as money sitting in a bank or brokerage account isn’t emitting any greenhouse gases. Most Canadian families in the middle income brackets that spend most of their income are likely to be more or less in the same financial situation as before. Big spenders are likely to be hit the hardest.

The article is on - surprise - a blog called "Canadian Capitalist".

--------

What will really “screw” Canadians, as Harper is fond of putting it, is making them afraid of bold proposals. Maybe there’s a better way for the feds, to fight global warming (it’s clearly not through Conservative “intensity targets”), but a Green Shift is a bold move and a good first step.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum - I had this at the start of the journal but it seemed to just get in the way there. But seeing as I wrote it I'm kinda obliged to post it.

There has been the assertion that this site is non-partisan - that the site does not support any particular political party. That is true and it's good by me. I lean to a particular party. I have, on occasion, voted strategically in the past and I will have to do it again this time. I would be ok with the Liberals spending ten years in the political wilderness as a consequence of channeling government funds through ad companies to their own coffers.

However that leaves us with the very real possibility of the Cons getting a majority. Not acceptable.

So we have to elect Anyone But Conservatives. Vote early, vote often, vote for the candidate that has the best chance of denying a Con a seat. I know - that runs against good sense and logic, in some cases. I means that you would be voting for someone that is not your ideal pick. Strategic voting is a bitter pill to swallow.

References:

Liberal Party Green Shift policy - 'pdf' in English

The Green Party Green Tax Shift policy

P.S.

I had started this journal a week ago and upon reflection it's a bit rambley. My apologies and thanks for reading.