The Great Canadian Carbon Tax Swindle

Last week when David Suzuki rolled out his Amazing Carbon Tax Schticht prior to the Federal Budget, I asked Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein if he'd be doing a response. He replied, "All in due time..."

It was well worth the wait.

In The carbon cops are coming, Goldstein exposes the intellectual dishonesty of environmental advocates and politicians who try to woo us to the Green side with tales of how their schemes will be 'revenue neutral'. As a public service, Lorrie offers his three-pronged guide designed to help us sort through the hot air emanating from Suzuki Nation:

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...

And that's a huge assumption.

Even the Toronto Star takes note of the fact that while this may be a desirable situation, it is clearly not going to happen anytime in the near future. Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, brother of the current Federal Liberal environmental critic David, is not jumping on the bandwagon. He rightly realizes that such a plan would devastate the Ontario economy which is already facing huge challenges competing with China, etc.

As in all things, buyer beware.

Losing patience with the deniers*

* Denier - Anyone who crosses David Suzuki.

* * * *

Tomorrow, Kyoto überkop David Suzuki will use a news conference in Ottawa in another attempt to shame the Federal Government into including in its budget a "carbon tax or carbon trading system to cut greenhouse gas emissions".

If that doesn't work there's always jail.

Meanwhile, Kate has highlighted two excellent columns in today's Sun. Angelo Persichilli asks for some truth from the media about how much environmental changes will cost us and how effective (or ineffective) they're likely to be - Science and politics overlap the truth.

The ever-witty Lorrie Goldstein explains how the 'Suzuki Nation' attempts to shame us lest we dare complain about the high costs of going green and how we're being hoodwinked into thinking that something might actually be accomplished in the bargain - It's green fever madness!

Best line:

...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 Kate's got a few little gems of her own as she exposes the hypocrisy of jouralists who pretend to care about the environment:

...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.

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?

From SDA: Y2Kyoto - The Twilight Zone.

Brilliant stuff, Kate!


So as Saint Suzuki gets on the media pulpit tomorrow to whip up his congregation into another lynch-mob frenzy, just remember that there are a few truthful media pundits left.

Cherish them - before they join Harper in the gallows.

* * * *

Monday Update: Halls of Macadamia - "Federal Carbon Tax Proposed".

Lorne Gunter - Forget Global Warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age.



For further background, please check out Lorrie Goldstein's previous column, "Green taxes put us in the red". Sun articles don't stay online forever so read it while you can. Some memorable lines:

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.

Who's got the REAL secret agenda?

Q. What do Stephane Dion and David Suzuki have in common?

A. Someone to help put out the fires of their inflammatory rhetoric.


In Dion's case, it was the Liberal party that had to issue a statement explaining what the Leader of the Official Opposition really meant to say. He didn't actually want to send troops into Pakistan or "stuff like that".

David Suzuki's challenge to university students to look for a "legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail" was explained thusly:

Dan Maceluch, a spokesman for Dr. Suzuki, said that he did not mean the statement to be taken literally.

"He's not advocating locking people up, but he is pulling his hair out."

(Post - H/T ChuckerCanuk) A great read, BTW!


Dion's gaffe was likely just another example of his bumbling inability to communicate, which is a somewhat disconcerting quality in someone aspiring to become Prime Minister.

However, in the case of David Suzuki, I very much doubt that he didn't intend his comment to be taken in a more literal sense.

For one thing, as Terry O'Neill observed yesterday, this wasn't the first time Suzuki had made this type of remark:

...So what exactly has Suzuki, who is on the university-lecture circuit these days, been saying? For starters, he told a University of Toronto audience last month that the next federal election ought to be about the environment. No problem there. However, as reported by a student newspaper, he then opined that government leaders who aren't acting quickly enough to save the environment "should go to jail for what they're not doing right now … What our government is not doing is a criminal act."

His allegation of law-breaking was apparently no mere slip of the tongue. Speaking a few weeks later at McGill University, Suzuki again equated governments' alleged inaction on the environment with a criminal act; in fact, he is reported to have said students ought to find a legal way to throw politicians in jail for ignoring climate-change science...

However, here's an interesting tidbit via Mark Peters in his post Rule by Autocratic Scientists. He quotes authors David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith in a recent op-ed, Climate Change - Is Democracy Enough?:

...Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. . .
There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. . .

...We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions...

Prometheus also quotes the following:

[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

Mark Peters has summarized this whole thing very well with his closing paragraph in which he cites the 'two chief enemies of liberal democracy in addition to islamic jihadism':

1. Scientists with a penchant for expert authoritarianism, and
2. Our learned deference to so-called expert opinion; our near reverence of anyone sporting a PhD.

To which I would only add:

3. Our lemming mentality that allows others do our thinking for us.

* * * *

Related: A reader just notified me via email that the word "Lemming" has hit Parliament. Check out Thursday Feb. 7 Hansard, Statements by Members, Mike Lake - Tackling Violent Crime:

In a couple of minutes, the Liberal leader will stand up, cheered on by his team of Liberal lemmings. I hope he will use this opportunity to tell the House that in his long-awaited first act of leadership he is demanding that his unelected Liberal senators stop playing political games with the safety of Canadians.

Saturday Update: The Suzuki shtick - Post.

Sunday Update: The Nature of Suzuki - Calgary Herald

Lorrie Goldstein - Finding the right words.

Why do I pay for this propaganda?

One step closer to cancelling my Record subscription - A year for saving the environment.

* * * *

Related - In case you missed it: Lorrie Goldstein - BS Alert! BS Alert!

Also - A Global Warming Primer.

Loonie trumps Environment - Updated

(Update at end)

In spite of all the histrionics emanating from Bali last week, the issue of the Environment didn't even make CTV's Top Ten Canadian Stories.

More bad news for the Kyoto Kult - The Looney was Number One.

Reality bites, huh?

* * * *

Related: Lorne Gunter - For Kyoto's Champions, the meetings never end:

...Achievement means little to the UN's climate crusaders. It's the appearance of activity that counts. Keep moving, keep meeting, keep the shrimp toast and single malts coming, and the need actually to accomplish some tangible environmental outcome becomes inconsequential.

The Kyoto process is the ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance.

Consider the reception for Kevin Rudd, the new Australian prime minister. He wins power on the eve of the Bali conference and announces his first act as PM will be to sign the Kyoto accord and agree to deep emissions cuts --perhaps as much as 60% by 2020. He then flies off to the Indonesia resort where the 15,000 delegates and hangers-on welcome him as a conquering hero.

But three days into the UN gathering, Australia's electricity commission tells the new prime minister that his government's proposals will lead to a rise in electrical bills of at least 30%, perhaps more. Such an increase would almost surely stunt Australia's booming economy. So Mr. Rudd backs down. He announces his country will not agree to immediate cuts, but rather now favours cuts of 50-60% by 2050.


These are the same levels and deadline that have been advocated by Canada's Conservative government for more than a year. But because our Tories refuse to pay homage to Kyoto as the be-all and end-all of environmental compassion, they are vilified by delegates while the Rudd government is celebrated. Symbolism over substance...

One of Lorne's best columns, IMHO.


Also see Grey Canada - Emissions by country.

* * * *

Tuesday Update: Remember Austyn, our resident Political Prodigy?

Well it seems that last night he and his Dad were discussing BCer in Toronto's post - CTV omits global warming/environment from top stories list.

His Dad sent me this email:

Hi Joanne,

I'm not sure if you remember me, but I'm pretty sure that you remember my very smart son Austyn.

He was reading over my shoulder as I was going through my regular reads of blogs on the internet. As I was scrolling through liblogs he got me to go back to BCer's. He wanted to read it and after we read it and the comments he asked me if I noticed anything.

Austyn's point was someone that is so concerned that the environment/global warming was not in the top ten of Canadian news stories, but still flies all over to re qualify for Aeroplan Elite status, obviously is not actually concerned about global warming...

I see a future Blogging Tory in the making. Well done, Austyn!

Hodgepodge of updates and links - Updated many times

I'm trying hard to get away from the computer for a while, but it just won't let me...

Anyway, here is an assortment of links which I hope you find interesting. I often post these types of things for future reference. Blogger can be a useful tool for research with its search functions.


Threat to Freedom of Speech in Canada:
SDA - Macleans Magazine: A Case Study of Media-Propagated Islamophobia. Excellent comment by one of Kate's U.S. readers:

As an American, I cannot believe what is going on in your country concerning that disgusting (and clearly dangerous) "Human Rights Commission" of yours. When criticism of government policy can be penalized as "hate speech", you are no longer sliding down a slippery slope. Rather, you are in the muck. I will never again regret the appearance of flag burners in my country. I may disagree with them, at times to the point of fury, but I will regard their presence as a blessed sign that free speech is alive and well in America.
Posted by: Robert Pujat at December 10, 2007 3:57 PM

Tobacco Tax Protest:
LFP - Farmers to give Natives tobacco. Big tax loss for government.

The convoy would be illegal. Special permits are required to transport tobacco from Delhi to Caledonia. It is also illegal to transact tobacco outside the auction exchange in Delhi...

Will the OPP uphold the law?
Sex offender registry funds diverted, Tories say. (OPP diverted funds...)

Runciman suggested the OPP diverted some of the money for the sex offender registry to pay for policing the nearly two-year aboriginal occupation of a disputed housing development in Caledonia.

Isn't that great?
Sun - Province failing Christopher.


Paying homage to Mother Earth:
Celestial Junk - Ecophobia: Taking Advantage of NHL Hammer-heads.
FLICK OFF, eh?

Making lots of green: A convenient £50m for Green Gore (Times, courtesy of National Newswatch). Also see Australia 'stalling Bali Talks'. Wow!! Wasn't Rudd supposed to be the Environmentalist's messiah or something?

Highly recommended: Angelo Persichilli - Dion's Polluted Reputation.

Anyone got some darts? Suzuki as a guest columnist for the Star - Could there be a worse combination?

Lorne Gunter - Harper right to oppose Bali proposals.

Lorrie Goldstein - New Kyoto must include U.S., China.



Justice:
Big Blue Wave - The Unborn Victims of Crime Bill: It's a go!
Thursday, Dec. 13 - Second Reading scheduled (first time debated)

Scantygate:
National Post - The NDP's Nosey Nanny. BTW, isn't there a screen of some kind that you can buy for a laptop so personal information can't be seen at an angle by straying eyes?

Update: Dr. Roy says yes!!! Memo to James Moore - Put this on your Christmas list!!!

Steve Janke has a video for Irene Mathyssen.

Dr. Roy found the link to Irene's imaginary diary!

What would Irene say about this??? (H/T Mary T in comments) - Don't look, James!!!

Times Colonist - Sleazy NDP porn allegation dishonours all MP's.


More grievances from the Eternally Offended:
David Warren - Suing for Silence.


Urban Funding:
Record - Lack of transit link to Toronto an 'embarrassment', Cannon says and Minister blames cities, province for bogged-down transportation.

O.K. Premier. C'est maintenant votre tour.


Health care Accessibility:
Michael Coren - Two-Tier Trauma

Ottawa Sun - New funding trims abortion wait times. "Now, new funding has cut the wait time to terminate a pregnancy to about a week"... Well, at least Smitherman has his priorities straight, right?


Potential Dion Replacements:
Maybe Chretien should try again? (Don't it always seem to go, you don't know whatcha got til it's gone...)





More to come...

Bali Bunk

Kudos to Jonathan Kay for diffusing some of the hot air emanating from yesterday's Star.

Today's National Post editorial focuses on the failures of Kyoto and the ironic hypocrisy of the upcoming Bali conference itself - Son of Kyoto:

...The UN is hosting a major conference this week and next in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate a successor agreement to Kyoto. What lessons have the delegates drawn from the first treaty's flaws? None, apparently. If anything, their proposals for a Kyoto II suggest an accord that would be worse than the original.

While nominally binding more nations to reduction targets, the UN in reality appears intent on making the same three dozen wealthy countries make the bulk of the sacrifices. At the same time, it would saddle them with an additional burden: sending hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to developing nations in order to ensure that what marginal emission reductions those countries are called on to make can be achieved cost-free.

The sheer size of the Bali gathering shows how the global-warming movement has become an industry unto itself. During their negotiations on emission reductions to save the planet, the 20,000 delegates and observers in Bali will generate a greater carbon footprint than all the residents of a city the size of Victoria, Halifax or London, Ont., would produce in a month. The Canadian Climate Action Network, which includes some of this country's best-known eco-crusaders, boasted Monday that it was sending 60 participants. Flying those delegates and their confreres from around the world to the remote resort island will generate 110,000 tonnes of CO2, alone.

But then, this do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude should not be surprising: The most strident champions of carbon abatement are unaccountable NGOs and celebrity environmentalists who travel around the world feting one another, drinking their own green Kool-Aid...

Exactly. And if any of those eco-evangelists feel the need for a brief diversion, there's plenty to atone for afterwards.



Cutting through the hype is a challenge for the average Canadian, but let me make this perfectly clear - It will affect your own bottom line. As Ultramar vice-president Louis Forget said of Quebec's 'green tax', "Somehow, the consumers will pay for it."

Oh yes, we will pay and pay and pay again.


Those of us who still have jobs, that is.

* * * *

Related: Adam Daifallah - Cooling it.

Bali Deadlock (Liberal, but still worth the read)

Help please! Update: Jonathan Kay to the rescue!

Evening Update: It appears that Jonathan Kay intends to publish this editorial in tomorrow's Post - Dump Kyoto, Save Lives. (H/T National Newswatch)

It's a direct rebuttal to Byers' Star piece (see below).

...My problem with the Kyoto camp isn’t that it’s peddling “junk science.” It’s that, like Byers, they go straight from the science to the politics without stopping to count the money. What if global warming is real, but Kyoto is still a rip-off — even according to the big-hearted humanitarian logic at the core of the pro-Kyoto camp?

On that note, here’s something that pops out at you when you read Byers’ op-ed: a total absence of numbers. The same is true of most pro-Kyoto articles, and sometimes even whole books. Too often, the argument for fighting climate change is based on vague appeals to cuddly polar bears, our moral debt to mother nature, the “will of the international community” — as well as the usual litany of worst-case (and, often, worse-than-worst-case) disaster scenarios. You rarely see anyone actually crunch the numbers and prove Kyoto’s worth on a cost-benefit basis...

Consider: The global all-in compliance costs of Kyoto amount to about $180-billion per year. Yet all these billions — even paid in perpetuity — would delay the globe’s expected rate of heating over the next century by just 5%. Assuming Kyoto is allowed to expire in 2012, its total effect will have been to delay the pace of global warming by one week. In terms of Canada’s contribution to Kyoto, the effect would be measured in hours. Think about that the next time Dion or David Suzuki lecture you about Canada’s lost opportunity to save the world.

Thank you Jonathan for this refreshing reality check. If only all my wishes were answered so swiftly.

* * * *

I can't let this one go by, but I need some help due to time constraints.

Please read this opinion piece by Michael Byers - Prime Minister Stands out as Small Man of Humanity (Star). If you're a True Blue Conservative, this one's gonna make you see red!


Here's what jumped out at me:

Harper's antipathy to international environmental co-operation is well known. He once dismissed the Kyoto Protocol as "essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." But his concerns about burden-sharing and free-riding are misplaced. Firefighters don't check tax records before responding to an emergency call.

Now this sounded vaguely familiar, and then I remembered. That analogy was used in a recent Record editorial (which we totally picked apart):

If rich and poor houses on a street were on fire, would Harper wait until everyone paid the same taxes before calling the fire brigade?

So what's up with that? Is this the latest revelation from some kind of Kyoto New Testament or something? I guessed I missed that service. (Oh, yeah. We were snowed in.)


Lots more to challenge in the article.

Have fun.

Bad news for Lizzy May and company - Bumped with update

(Update at end)

Environment Canada forecasts "coldest winter in almost 15 years".

If November is any indication, I'm inclined to agree.


Oops. Stephane must have read the same report! Y2Kyoto: Politics ends at the swim up bar.

"We are speaking about the worst ecological threat that humanity is facing, and I will do my best to get out of this damn frozen country."

* * * *

Saturday Update: Speaking of Bali, this is a must-watch video - Rex Murphy (Bali Logic). H/T Socialist Gulag:

...If global warming is the imminent and catastrophic peril to the earth that everyone from the IPCC to David Suzuki to Al Gore and every socially-conscious celebrity on the planet have been telling us it is, then there can be no serious argument for Canada to make mandatory commitments, while exempting the giant emitters of the world such as China and India. This is like plugging a leak while ignoring a flood...

An inconvenient mess

Oh the irony...

The eco-cruise ship which belongs to Al Gore's buddy Bruce Poon Tip and sunk in the Antartic, is fast becoming a huge eco-disaster - Sunken Antarctic cruise ship leaves oil spill, threatening 2,500 penguins (MS Explorer).

MSM split on Harper's stand re: Kyoto

Well, it's hardly surprising that the left-wing media are all over Harper like a pack of jackals. The Record has this editorial offering today - Harper drops the ball on climate change.

Here's a classic line:

To be sure, implementing an international plan to deal with climate change will not be cheap. Every cleanup comes with a cost. Harper's approach of waiting for all countries to be able to pay is naive. It will just delay the process. If rich and poor houses on a street were on fire, would Harper wait until everyone paid the same taxes before calling the fire brigade?

What a weak analogy!!!

For one thing, Harper isn't 'refusing to call the fire brigade'. He simply realizes that it's pointless to fight a wildfire that's engulfing a whole neighbourhood if the poorer houses refuse to have their gas turned off. No matter how hard you try to stop your own house from burning, the fire from your neighbour's house is going to affect yours unless they stop it at the source.


Next they make this disingenuous comment:

Interestingly, Australia's prime minister, John Howard, who opposed Kyoto, has just been defeated by Labour Leader Kevin Ruud, who has pledged to sign the accord. From both a policy and a political perspective, Harper would be wise to become a more ardent opponent of climate change.

Well, Dr. John Ray from Brisbane thinks Rudd's stance is just so much hot air:

...And the resolve of Prime-minister-elect Kevin Rudd to sign the Kyoto treaty is a good example of such tokenism. Australia's emissions of carbon dioxide are already in line with what most of Europe has achieved so the signing will make little difference.

It should also be noted that Rudd will have to get the treaty through the Senate and, in a quirk of Australian politics, he is unlikely to be able to do that until July, 2008. Senate membership does not change until then and the present Senate is conservative-dominated. So Rudd's talk of "immediate" action is just the usual political flim-flam.

By contrast, the National Post has quite a different take on things than the Record - Standing tall in Uganda:

At the Commonwealth meeting in Uganda, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi professed himself "disappointed" with Mr. Harper's stand. No wonder. Under the original draft, nations such as Malaysia would have been subject to no emission limits unless they were also recipients of large cash payments.


Putting aside this attempted cash grab, our more fundamental objection to Kyoto, and any plan that requires large-scale cuts in greenhouse gasses, is that it would hobble our economy -- especially our already-struggling manufacturing sector. Mr. Dion may not admit it, but the drastic cuts he seeks would essentially kill whole industries -- including, most likely, Ontario's auto industry. In recent months, Mr. Harper has been accused of ignoring the financial needs of the Greater Toronto Area by snubbing its demands for more federal cash. Ironically, his rejection of the logic of Kyoto has, in one fell swoop, done more to help the region than any of the bailout schemes proposed by Mayor David Miller.

Exactly. With the auto manufacturing sector already on the skids and begging for help, signing Kyoto would only worsen an already troubled Ontario economy. People are losing their jobs. They have to eat and be housed.

And where does that money come from? Taxes.

Are you willing to pay the price?

* * * *

Related:

Tip from a loyal reader - Al Gore buddy owner of sunken ship that left huge carbon footprint on Antarctic Ocean floor: CFP.

Elizabeth May - Global Saboteur. Bourque gave this the following headline - Liz May: Climate Change Worse than Nazis.

Some people never learn.


Elizabeth May goes too far - EcoLibertarian.

Move over Al Gore

Good grief! I may have to find another religion - BBC.


And speaking of planting trees, it's now starting to make some kind of sense why Dalton is so intent on continuing to fund Catholic-only education.

All weather is climate change

L. Ian MacDonald gives us a science lesson.

And I'm still having trouble figuring out this double negative:

Climate change? Something is going on. There hasn't been an evening in the last two weeks when it hasn't been cool enough to start the fireplace - in July. In two decades of summers here, this has never happened before.

Thanks, Ian. I can skip today's brain teaser. (That should set up Red Tory quite nicely for a snarky comment.)

* * * *

Related: Good chance Mayor Andy Wells isn't a member of the Gore-Suzuki fan club.

Lights! Camera! Political Posturing!

Lorne Gunter nails it this morning with his editorial "Live from Germany, it's Kyoto theatre".

Canada is being cast as one of the villains in this global charade, with the EU playing the hero. But the object of the Kyoto unreality show is for each leader to appear to be acting for altruistic purposes all the while safeguarding each country's own political and economic interests. Being politicians, they are thusly well-equipped to play the role. Gunter explains:

At a pre-summit get-together with Stephen Harper on Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in the politest terms possible, told our Prime Minister that his goal to reduce Canadian emissions by 60%-70% by 2050, using 2006 as a base year, was good, but not good enough. Germany and the EU backed a reduction of 60%-80% by mid-century using the lower benchmark of 1990 as starting point. (In order to match Germany's and the EU's proposed cuts, Canada would have to reduce its emissions by 80%-85% from current levels, rather than the 60%-70% proposed by the Harper government.)

These numbers, though, (ours as well as theirs) are completely meaningless. They are politically driven one-upmanship: We care more 'cause we can promise to cut more.

Gunter then goes on to explain how some European countries such as Britain, Germany and the EU in general be able to meet their targets with a little "accounting trickery":

The EU as a whole might also slip in under the wire for its Kyoto targets, not because its industry is growing greener all the time, but because it has expanded its membership this decade to include a lot of old Eastern Bloc countries that, like East Germany, have shuttered all sorts of ancient, dirty plants since 1990. The entire EU gets to claim credits for the CO2 those plants have not generated since.

In other words, the bankruptcy of state planning might help Europe meet its Kyoto targets, not European moral superiority or greater concern for the environment.

The Star's Richard Gwyn has reviewed this farce as well, and is unimpressed with the performance of any of the actors:

..Nice, sensitive Europeans, therefore, while everyone else is unimaginative, narrow-minded, greedy.

If you believe all of that, you should take up counting flying pigs for a hobby.

Thus, if the Europeans are really so worked up about global warming, how come they signed an "Open Skies" agreement with the United States that, by increasing the number of transatlantic flights, will dump another 3.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year?

The Europeans do care about fighting global warming. A major reason, though, is that they will come out of the fight as winners.

The EU itself desperately needs some grand self-justifying cause after having had its proposed new constitution rejected by its own citizens.

Also, the trade bloc's new Eastern European members, all upgrading their old, energy-guzzling, Soviet-style industries, can easily make a lot of money out of Kyoto's carbon credits market...

Actually, I'm quite impressed with the objectivity and non-partisanship of Gwyn's review. He pans everyone with equal contempt.

The countries that are dragging their heels are those with red-hot economies: Canada, China, Japan, Australia and the U.S.

China in particular is looking for a pass on emission responsibilities all the while sucking up manufacturing jobs from Canada and flooding our markets with cheap, unregulated goods with suspect additives.

I admire Stephen Harper for telling it like it is. We have to protect our economy, but we can certainly make a concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.

However, we need everyone on board to make a difference from a global perspective.

Enough with the fiction. Let's get real.

* * * *

More here from TD Bank vice-president Don Drummond: "...I thought the whole debate is just one giant semantic trap." (H/T Jack's Newswatch).

BTW, which is the bigger threat - Global warming or a Nuclear Winter?

And here's a rare moment when Red Tory and I are on the same page. We're both global warming agnostics.

Critical thinking - No longer required in the Nanny State

There is an interesting selection of Letters to the Editor in today's National Post, which serves to back up a comment I recently made about the vilification of Global Warming deniers; a comment to which Red Tory took great exception:

...I think the point is that we need to be able to talk about this or else it's going to be pushed into a closet just like the abortion discussion.

Skeptics and deniers will be called heretics, and vilified if they even ponder bringing up the subject.

Red Tory responded:

...Funny, I’ve stated repeatedly that I’m agnostic when it comes to climate change and that this is the only reasonable position for a skeptic and rational empiricist like me to take. The vast majority of my liberal friends respond with “fair enough” or something along that line. Perhaps you can explain why I am not denounced as a heretic or vilified as you assert will always be the case regarding those even pondering such unorthodox thoughts.

Well, I'm not exactly sure which segment of humanity Red's liberal readers represent, but I digress...


In the wars of the Professors Emeritus this morning we have a Jon Van Loan decrying Kevin Libin's Gore smack-down:

Al Gore's well researched An Inconvenient Truth, even with its over-simplifications and the odd error, is still an excellent approach to jolting the public conscience into considering a problem that is now occurring and will -- if left without immediate and proper redress --lead to irreversible disaster...

Odd error??? Pull-eeze!

Here is the dangerous part:

A large panel of Nobel Prize science winners, along with greater than 90% of the scientists who have examined this problem in detail, believe that human-induced climate change is occurring. Thus, I would say to contrarian individuals that it would be time wasting, misleading and counterproductive to give "The Other Side" much of a mention.

In other words, ignore the dissenters. Shut down debate - just as we have with the discussion to limits on abortion.


This very frightening viewpoint is brought up again by Prof. Kenneth Paradis, Contemporary Studies (English), Wilfrid Laurier University in Brantford, Ontario:

...However, almost the the entire community of climate change scientists agrees with the basic reality of the global warming situation Mr. Gore describes. Why, then, would you argue that there is a "debate" on this issue and that classroom treatments of it should give equal time to an opposing view?

Instead of using the lack of absolute consensus as an excuse to manufacture a "debate," perhaps we should advocate that the positions be given an amount of classroom time in proportion to their representation in the scientific literature. So after Mr. Gore's film, there certainly might be a minute or two presentation of alternative theories, but even that goes against good pedagogical practice and common sense...

Read the whole thing. You won't believe it. These illustrious professors are forming the minds of our kids, folks!!


Fortunately the Post has published a few letters from the side of reason, that request that skill of critical thinking be taught in the classroom, rather than outright propaganda. Professor W.G. Hopkins of the University of Western Ontario writes:

...Our schools are clearly failing on the critical thinking part, at least when it comes to the global warming controversy. When An Inconvenient Truth, with all of its distortions, scientific inaccuracies and pure propaganda is thrust upon the student as the only and final answer, then this is no longer education. This is now indoctrination. It is also a distressing commentary on the quality of both the school system and its teachers, not to mention our prospects for the future.

You see, what's at stake here isn't so much the environment, as is the state of democracy in Canada.

Because if we shut down debate and only teach one side of an issue without encouraging critical thinking, we are churning out a country of sheeple.

With that, democracy is in serious peril.

* * * *

Update: Ah, finally some sanity from the left (H/T Steve Janke):

A top United Nations official says he is no longer alarmed by Canada’s stand on the Kyoto Protocol now that he better understands the Conservative government’s position.

“I must admit, I was worried for some time, but I was much encouraged by the clarification,” Yvo de Boer, executive secretary to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in Montreal Tuesday.

He said he now understands that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government wasn’t rejecting the value of the Kyoto accord, but rather observed its objectives cannot be met within the target deadline.

David Suzuki will not be impressed!

Also please check out Conservaparanoia - Thinking Deep.

And speaking of David Suzuki, check out Steve's Hypocrite or Henpecked?

Force-feeding Inconvenient Propaganda

Is 'Global Warming' the new gay?

Alright, that question does seem somewhat provocative, but in the sense that that both subjects are being pushed in Canadian curriculum, you have to wonder what forces are behind the thrust of classroom education today. Parents are becoming concerned that perhaps a one-sided view of global warming is evolving, and similar to the force-feeding of gay education, they have very little input.

However, the Global Warming movement has gone one step further, by promoting Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in the classroom when even some of Gore's own supporters concede that the film contains inaccuracies. The National Post has a front-page article this morning that highlights this trend, which is not confined to Canada.

There were a few disturbing items in this report, including the willingness of many teachers to gloss over the inconvenient flaws in the subject matter. Parents are concerned:

"I get e-mail from parents all across the country about this, in Calgary, B.C., Ontario," says Albert Jacobs, the founder of Friends of Science, a Calgary-based group that promotes alternative theories to climate change. "They say, my kid has been exposed to this stuff which is totally one-sided and totally wrong and we want them to see the other side."

Yet the "facts" seem in dispute:

Though Mr. Gore was right for "getting the message out," University of Colorado climatologist Kevin Vranes told The New York Times last month that he worried about the film "overselling our certainty about knowing the future." James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist and one of Mr. Gore's advisors, agreed the movie has "imperfections" and "technical flaws." About An Inconvenient Truth's connection of rising hurricane activity to global warming - something refuted by storm experts - Mr. Hansen said, "we need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is." Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record (temperatures have been receding since 1998), that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing), that Antarctica is warming (interior temperature readings show cooling) and that sea levels will "rise 18 to 20 feet," swamping coastal cities (the International Panel on Climate Change predicts a few inches).

Efforts are being made to show the alternate viewpoint espoused in the new British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, but "there's no requirement teachers to show both sides of the argument unless school boards demand it."


The most frightening item of all in this report though, is the closing paragraph:

But others, like Mr. Gore, have an agenda. On a discussion board on the CBC Web site last month, readers debated the Surrey controversy. One commentor, who identified himself as a teacher, wrote this: "Yes students should look at both sides on an issue and learn to judge for themselves. But there are times to do this and times to stop." He is certain Mr. Gore is right. Now, he wrote, "It is time for action."

Let's hope that guy isn't your kid's teacher.

* * * *

Update: A little Inconvenient Hypocrisy here.

BTW, my apologies to anyone who tried to comment earlier. It seems that the comment function was turned off altogether. Please feel free to weigh in anytime now. Thanks.

Check this out - Global Warming will be considered a joke in five years!

Big Family Flick-off continued

Today may very well be a multiple post day. There are so many things grinding my gears that I will need to use this blog as a forum to decompress.

For now let's focus on a few amusing letters in today's National Post, which will hopefully serve as a continuation of yesterday's discussion about the perceived environmental irresponsibility of having large families.

Yesterday's post started off focusing on the Suzuki Foundation's utter shock and disbelief regarding a poll that suggested Canadians would not be willing to sell their souls for the sake of the environment, but quickly morphed into a discussion about the social disease of having children, especially several, after I posted a link to Jonathan Kay's op-ed as an update.

Read Kay's column if you haven't already, then enjoy the letters. Here are snippets from my favourites:

My response to Gaby Kaplan and his anti-procreation crowd would be the following: Who do you think is going to wipe up your nether parts when you become a geriatric assmonkey during your second childhood a few decades from now?...

- Ruth Dubin, Kingston

As the father of two well-behaved "assmonkeys," I tip my hat to Mr. Kay for his comments about the obnoxious lunacy of the "child-free" movement.

Frankly, I find it hard to get too upset about these people. After all, the trend appears to be exclusive to left-leaning, hemp-wearing, egocentric tree huggers, and we should be thankful that some members of that peculiar demographic are doing their level best to pare back their corner of the herd...

D.A. Neill, Ottawa.

And on a more serious note:

By far the most dangerous aspect of the so-called "green agenda" is the undercurrent of socialism. This green agenda would quickly move to restrictions (in the name of morality) on numbers of children (carbon producers), how many families live in a common space (to save energy) and where you live (next to the factory so you don't have to drive).

Those pushing the green agenda are not interested in our freedom nor our welfare. They are interested in their cause...

Rob MacDonald, Calgary.

It would seem that the Kyoto Krowd's fixation on zero population growth runs contrary to our need to sustain ourselves as a country in terms of demographics. However, Red Tory makes the point in the previous thread that attempting to encourage larger families through incentives runs against the Conservative view of hands-off government:

...Incentivizing reproductive behaviour and putting in place measures to provide an environment more inclined to facilitate larger families through various social welfare programs targeted in this direction are all things that are an anathema to the “conservative” creed...

Well, I can think of a lot of things this government is doing that would appear to be against "conservative creed", but the point is that this is one more example where the environmental extremists' philosophy seems to be somewhat antithetical to our economic needs as a country.

To be sure there are other more emotional reasons for having children, but I am just looking at this as an issue of pragmatics for now.

As Baby Boomers continue to rely more heavily on the social and medical network for assistance, who is going to pay for it? Natives and immigrants are replacing themselves. Their children will surely look after them in their old age.

Who will look after you?

The Right to Choose - Women vs. Doctors

It was difficult for me to select a topic today, because there really are a lot of issues that I would like to pursue. However, when I came across this article in today's Post, I decided to continue the abortion debate; especially with today being the day for the March for Life on Parliament Hill.

Then I began to realize that the other major theme I wanted to discuss, environmentalism, is closely related.

Melissa Leong of the Post reports that the National Abortion Federation has been applying pressure to the Canadian Medical Association "to change its so-called conscientious objector policy, which allows physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortions. It is the first time the federation has tried to lobby the CMA on this issue."

Apparently a recent study found that "only 15.9% of Canadian hospitals provide abortion services, a reduction from 17.8% that occurred without any change in official regulations or policies."

For shame!

Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, feels that physicians should put their patients' interests ahead of their "own religious and moral convictions.

Dr. Williard Johnston of the Canadian Physicians for Life strongly disagrees:

"Now is the time to be strengthening conscience protections so that people who find themselves uncomfortable with procedures should have their rights protected."

Well, what do you think? This situation is somewhat reminiscent of the gay marriage debate with marriage commissioners being forced to perform marriage ceremonies contrary to their religious beliefs. The argument in favour of not allowing them to abstain is that the commissioners are public servants.

Yet are doctors public servants? With the medical profession being so closely tied to National Health Care, I suppose you could make an argument in support of Ms. Saporta's point of view.


So now we have to weigh the "rights" of the pregnant woman against the "rights" of the doctor. Does the pre-born child have any rights?

In a world where children are increasingly undervalued, the answer is likely no.

Indeed, the sanctity of human life itself is losing status against other concerns such as environmentalism. Lorrie Goldstein points out in today's Sun that a common theme exists among environmental advocates that there are too many people in the world, to the detriment of Mother Earth:

In his bestseller The Weather Makers, scientist/conservationist Tim Flannery discusses in a chapter titled "2084: The Carbon Dictatorship?" the possibility of an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control (ECTC) one day zeroing in on the major cause of man-made global warming -- "the total number of people on the planet."

With that, he writes, the ECTC "will have transformed itself into an Orwellian-style world government with its own currency, army and control over every person and every inch of our planet." To be clear, Flannery is not advocating such a body, merely speculating on what could happen if we don't take action against man-made global warming in time.

It would seem that human life is very expendable when weighed against the demands of our planet, which appears to have been deified in a strangely pagan manner - demanding human sacrifice as appeasement for perceived transgressions.

Then we have the real extremist view where the decision to limit the size of your family is measured in terms of "per capita carbon dioxide emissions". (More at Lifesite)


Given the current preoccupation with placating the Earth Goddess, I really don't think that the concerns of Dr. Johnston and the Canadian Physicians for Life stand a chance.

Heck, having an abortion may even one day be viewed as a virtuous, environmentally-friendly act.

* * * *

Wow!! I've somehow woven a thread about abortion, same-sex marriage and environmentalists! That should be worth a comment or two.


Update: Proud to Be Canadian - CBC Newsworld's Susan Bonner calls pro-lifers "anti-abortionists". But what did you expect from CBC?

On the other hand, Don Newman's show was quite balanced tonight. Kudos to him for discussing the rally, which numbered in the 6000+ range of participants.

Sandy has a great post on the debate. Please take the time to check it out.

The Red Green Puppet Show

The Kyoto Kult analogy to religion reached new heights when Elizabeth May delivered an 'environmental sermon' at Liberal MP Glen Pearson's United Church on the weekend. Mr. Pearson likened the Green party leader to an Old Testament prophet.

It seems though that Mr. Pearson is now somewhat uncomfortable that Liz stands by her comments that condemn Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stance on climate change, comparing it to "a grievance worse than Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis."

A spokesman for the Prime Minister is asking for the slur to be retracted, adding that May is becoming Dion's puppet; doing the dirty work for him. (Imagine a leadership debate with Liz on board!)

Mr. Pearson is now trying to distance himself with the Godwin-like remarks:

"Canadians need to get more serious about it, but the whole link to the Nazis over that went beyond the pale, for me.

Better be careful, Stephane. Your cute little sock-puppet seems to be morphing into a very scary marionette with a will of her own.

* * * *

Update: Don't get sucked in by this one!

ChuckerCanuk - Elizabeth May: Christian Bashing "Christian".

* * * *

I'll be taking some time off. Feel free to leave comments, although I may eventually use Comment Moderation when away from the computer for extended periods.

Real life awaits.

To Al Gore - Flick Off, eh?

Does anyone else out there resent Al Gore telling Canada what to do about the environment? I can barely tolerate David Suzuki's squawking, but the sanctimonious Goracle???

Well Mr. Gore, stick this in your global warming pipe and smoke it.