Exactly what kind of energy does that power saw use anyway?
* * * *
1) When any of them tell you "polluters will pay" to reduce greenhouse gases, they mean you and me.
Whenever they talk about a carbon tax, a "cap-and-trade" system, carbon credits or the regulation of industrial greenhouse gases by government, they are talking about the same thing -- higher taxes.
2) This brings us to the second point of our guide: Whenever a politician, or anyone else, claims a carbon tax will be "revenue neutral" nail them down on exactly what they mean.
Politicians and environmentalists like to toss around "revenue neutral" because it sounds as if even with a new carbon tax, you will pay no more in total taxes than you do now.
That's not what it means. Even if a government was considering a truly "revenue neutral" tax, it may well not be neutral for you. Say you need your car to drive to work because you live in one city and your job is in another. If the government imposes a carbon tax by hiking gasoline prices, it may claim it's "revenue neutral" because it's going to return an equal amount in tax incentives for people to take public transit. Problem is, if you don't have a realistic transit alternative for getting to work, your carbon tax is no longer "revenue neutral." .
3) Finally, when a politician or environmentalist tells you a carbon tax can be imposed with "minimal" harm to the economy ask them what assumptions they base this on.
In both the recent study on carbon pricing by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and in the one released by the Suzuki Foundation last week, the authors simply assume that while Canada is taxing carbon, the U.S. and our other major trading partners will be doing the same...
The report argues that making polluters pay a fee for every tonne of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere could raise between $50-billion and $100-billion in revenue annually by 2020.
The report argues that most of that revenue could be used to greatly reduce personal income taxes.
...And finally in crazytown ... Ottawa ... where, amongst so many other absurdities on the environmental front, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, a man who can't control his caucus, has a plan to control the climate...
...But let's back up a little, for this is the end of civilization as we know it, and they're apparently convinced of that. A planetary emergency, no less.From SDA: Y2Kyoto - The Twilight Zone.
How does one convinced of impending planetary doom get up in the morning to work in the industry they do - an industry that employs vast numbers of people to travel the country via commercial jet and automobile, that sustains huge media complexes clogged to the ceilings with electricity consuming CO2-belching technology, that hauls tons of satellite equipment to produce on-the-scene reporting?
That indulges in the broadcasting of sporting events? And entertainment "news"?
"We interrupt this report on the last remaining meter of Arctic sea ice to bring you live footage of Britney Spears' entourage leaving the hospital ... John, you're in the helicoptor, what can you tell us?"
When it comes to curtailing wasteful practices and excessive C02 emissions, shouldn't they be among the first to go?
In reality, there's no way governments can or will make "Big Business" pay more for disgorging carbon into the atmosphere and heating up our planet.
Obviously, they'll just pass along the added costs to their captive customers -- us...
...It's the part the charitable David Suzuki glosses over when he rants (non-partisanly, of course) about how we should throw politicians such as Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in jail, or out of office, for doing nothing about global warming for the past two years and ... uh ... what? ... replace him with the Liberals who did nothing for 12?
...B.C. will bribe taxpayers with $100 of their own money, just before it introduces its escalating carbon tax July I, which it promises to keep "revenue neutral" via other tax cuts.
You can decide, gentle reader, on the likelihood of that promise being kept over the long term, but early skeptics (should we jail them for climate change denial?) include B.C.'s NDP and Green Party.
On the other hand, The Suzuki Foundation and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce both pronounced themselves pleased.
CRA's website says charities are "prohibited" from participating in "partisan political activity," meaning anything that "involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to (my emphasis) any political party or candidate for public office."
Canadians believe that their political and business leaders are falling behind and are out of step with the general population.
...Isn’t it time we made it clear to our elected officials and business leaders that we want them to get to work on solutions? Who will be the first to come forward and break the ice, to offer up some sound policies to get Canada moving and to help us be a model for other countries?This of course, is the watered-down version - meant to smooth ruffled feathers after his public partisan outbursts.
In June, in Toronto, Suzuki claimed the Harper Conservative government was harassing him by repeatedly auditing his foundation. According to the Globe and Mail, he said: "I am being hounded by the current government because I have a foundation that has my name and so they're trying to take away my charitable (status)," adding he now had to preface remarks with: "Everything I say is my personal opinion, has nothing to do with my foundation."
Really? Quick -- name another member of the Suzuki Foundation aside from Suzuki.
Visit the foundation's website, davidsuzuki.org. You'll see a picture of Suzuki at the top beside "David Suzuki Foundation." Both are to the left and slightly above the "DONATE Now!" icon.
Click on the first featured article, (Feb. 6): "Who will pay for our failure to act on global warming?" where Suzuki criticizes Harper and Stelmach.
How can anyone distinguish the views of David Suzuki from the David Suzuki Foundation?
I would like to know what Suzuki was doing speaking at an
NDP fund raiser in 2005.
Suzuki can be as partisan as he wants - just as soon as he relinquishes his foundation’s tax-protected charity status.
Re: "This is non-partisan?" (Lorrie Goldstein, Feb. 14): Any prudent business leader knows you need people around you who have different points of view, individuals who don't always agree on the best course of action. The ensuing discussion always leads to better decisions. Politicians know this too, which is why a cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy is healthy, sometimes heated debate. This allows all points of view to be considered before committing to a particular direction. It is therefore ironic the Toronto Sun would seek to stifle debate by calling on individuals to complain about David Suzuki's legacy of being outspoken. Furthermore, it smacks of vindictiveness to threaten to take away charitable status just because Goldstein doesn't like what Suzuki is saying. Come on, folks, let's encourage different perspectives, not censure them.
Peter Robinson
CEO, The David Suzuki Foundation
(Lorrie wrote this isn't a free speech issue and Suzuki can say what he likes, but if he's going to head up a charitable foundation, the same rules about political non-partisanship that apply to all charities should apply to his. Are you suggesting your foundation deserves special status?)
He urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science.
...He gave a scathing critique of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, chastising them for neglecting the environment in favour of economic growth and development of the tar sands...