Cheryl Gallant's farce -

Cheryl Gallant’s farce


The Conservatives sent up four backbenchers during members’ statements today to complain about a carbon tax. Among them was Cheryl Gallant, who offered this version of events.

Voters in my riding said no to a carbon tax on wood when the Liberals pushed it as a carbon tax.

Ms. Gallant suggested during the 2008 campaign that a carbon tax would raise the price of firewood.

Of course, by the Harper government’s current reckoning, voters in Ms. Gallant’s riding also said yes to a carbon tax when they voted for a candidate who ran on a platform that included a proposal to pursue cap-and-trade.


Cheryl Gallant’s farce

  1. For anyone interested Cheryl Gallant has been an MP for 12 years. She was the first (along with Scott Reid) Canadian Alliance MPs elected in Ontario. For some reason I always enjoy when she or any other long standing MPs get up with great fervor to spout this nonsense. I mean, shouldn’t rookie initiation have ended sometime in early 2001 for her?

  2. The United States is now exporting a record amount of thermal coal. Ironically, more and more of it is being burned in Europe. Europe is burning record amounts of thermal coal, and world natural gas prices have risen, and Germany goes off nuclear. Apart from the massive fraud in the European cap-n-trade system, their government are basically giving away carbon permits to industry and electricity generators for free.

    And the ultimate irony is that the US and Canada are now far more likely to reach the modified targets of Copenhagen (because of landlocked shale natural gas), than Europe (although Europe might meet them as their economies continue to crash because of all their hare-brained schemes).

    The American greenies should have been lying on the train tracks to US ports to stop coal exports, rather than trying to block oil sands pipelines.

    Obama’s “blue state” coal is going up in the air as carbon in Asia, and increasing in Europe.

    The more oil sands oil gets blocked, means more pain for Europe as their oil imports become much more costly than American oil, and they will be forced to burn even more coal.

    The environmentalists are destroying the planet. Their policies are leading to increased coal use in Asia, and now in Europe.

    • Eventually….and I realize it may take years….you’ll get something correct.

        • There is a carbon farce going on, and Wherry, the NDP, and the “so-called” environmentalists are the ones promoting it.

          Follow Obama’s coal.

        • Good grief, no.

          • You realize the Guardian is a proud progressive-leaning newspaper, home to George Monbiot.

            And that isn’t good enough for you?

          • No, I’M a progressive….I believe in progress…..the Guardian is usually a collection of dingbats.

            Your bizarre definitions always do you in.

    • The Germans meant well but seems they got the “cart before the horse”.

      Central and Eastern European countries are moving to disconnect their power lines from Germany’s during the windiest days. That’s when they get flooded with energy, echoing struggles seen from China to Texas over accommodating the world’s 200,000 windmills.

      Renewable energy around the world is causing problems because unlike oil it can’t be stored, so when generated it must be consumed or risk causing a grid collapse. At times, the glut can be so great that utilities pay consumers to take the power and get rid of it.

      • We could could convert excess electricity to hydrogen for use at a later date. Or in our transportation system, including personal vehicles.

    • How on earth is the switch to shale gas in N. America and the export of cheap coal the fault of environmentalists? And if US oil imports drop that should push down the cost of oil imports for Europeans if anything. It’s cheap coal that is the problem; it ‘s supply and demand that is causing the Europeans to ramp up their consumption [ and it is only in the last year according to your link]
      You could blame the greenies for opposing fracking in Europe, but that’s another issue.

      Where environmentalists are at fault is [imo] is in refusing to accept there is no perfect solution that is affordable – particularly in today’s economic climate – they will have to realize that tough compromises will be necessary to get back on track. Why on earth they haven’t long ago fixed the issuing of cheap permits is simply beyond me.
      And you conveniently skip over the fact that oil and coal companies have little interest and even less incentive to invest heavily in new clean energy sources.

      • The article whyshouldIsell links to makes it clear:

        “The price of carbon permits is extraordinarily low under the scheme,
        which was intended to penalise the burning of high-carbon fuels, forcing
        companies to use modern technologies and become more efficient. Low
        permit prices take away that incentive.”

        As we know, environmentalists are against taxing carbon, thwarting folks like himself and the Harpercons from doing so.

        • Must have missed all those stories of environmentalists lobbying like mad for those low carbon price permits.

          • Wrong message board, pal – this is the opposite world board.,

          • Seems like that some days.

      • Oil is less bad than coal. Suppressing the oil sands means oil prices are higher in Europe which means they use more coal rather than oil and natural gas.

        Ditto in Asia. The world uses the least coal if you don’t suppress oil (less bad) and don’t suppress natural gas (even less bad).

        Brent oil is now $20 more per barrel than WTI oil. It means Asia and Europe have a huge incentive to use coal, rather the oil/diesel, and natural gas, which on a global basis is priced off of the oil price.

        You bring down European natural gas prices if you let oil sands oil out, so the price of Brent oil (and world natural gas) decrease $20 per barrel to the North American oil price (WTI).

        Opposing the oil sands means coal becomes even more cheaper than global natural gas, because world oil prices and thus world natural gas prices are significantly higher.

        Opposing the oil sands favors global coal usage over global natural gas usage.

        i.e. “So-called” environmentalists are destroying the planet, just like when they first advocated biofuels, before they realized what a horrible idea that was.

        US “environmentalists’ oppose oil so the US can sell coal to Europe and Asia rather than let Qatar and Iran and Russia sell natural gas to them.

        Suppressing the oilsands means more coal gets used instead of more natural gas globally.

        Which is horrible for the environment.

        • Heh. If only we could triple oil sands production and replace coal with that additional tar sands production – we could decrease global emissions by 0.06% and save the planet!

          “US “environmentalists’ oppose oil so the US can sell coal to Europe and Asia ”
          Which “environmentalists” would those be? Not the ones getting arrested or running campaigns, I guess. Maybe you could provide some names.

          ” just like when they first advocated biofuels”

          I see what’s happening here – you’ve replaced the names of folks like Bush and Harper who set up ethanol welfare schemes with the word “environmentalists”.

          Now if only we had people called “environmentalists” who were interested in lowering emissions. Maybe such people would advocate some sort of system that would impose higher costs on higher emission fuels, which would make those fuels less competitive.


        • “You bring down European natural gas prices if you let oil sands oil out, so the price of Brent oil (and world natural gas) decrease $20 per barrel to the North American oil price (WTI).”

          That’s pretty ironic, since one of the principle tps of big oil in Canada is that they want out to the world wide markets so they can get a premium on their oil sands – so which is it, both can’t be right?
          There is no ideal solution, every option has a downside. One of the down sides of ramping up oil sands is that it further locks us in to a carbon fuel economy for lord knows how long? And then there’s the damage to the environment of Northern AB and the down stream affects in the NWT – nothing is without its risks.
          I have a proposition for you – let the oil flow, but institute hefty windfall taxes to offset the damage and help fund alternatives. No! I’m not surprised since this is really all about keeping the money from the exploitation of public resources in as few instutional hands as possible [ big investors, shareholders etc] while keeping the meddling govt, who should be thinking about future consequences, as far away from the golden goose as possible.IOWs, maximization of short term greed over long term thinking that prioritizes and benefits the common good.
          Just blaming this mess on environmentalists is to be intentionally obtuse.

    • I take it these talking points are considered too complicated for Con MP’s?

  3. As the father of an autistic child, I do recognize those who lack the ability to think dynamically. It’s tough to live with a static mind in this day and age, except in Parliament.

  4. Is this carbon tax game actually doing anything for the Conservatives? Is anyone independent attempting to measure the effectiveness of the “campaign?”

    • They must have polls showing it is getting traction. It is the only
      thing that could justify (even to the thickheaded CPC) the continuing
      idiocy of this campaign.