42

From the right-wing pages of our right-wing rag magazine


 

Senior Columnist Paul Wells on the leader who can’t be taken seriously on defence and foreign-policy issues: Harper.

National Editor Andrew Coyne on the leader who is shamefully hiding his costly, cumbersome carbon-pricing plan: Harper.

And if you like that, you’ll love Ken Whyte’s interview with Margaret Atwood. Maclean’s: enjoy the fruits of our good honest labour, comrades!


 

From the right-wing pages of our right-wing rag magazine

  1. Ah, yes. Andrew Coyne. Hero of the revolution. Well known for advocating nationalization of production and criticizing the NDP for “not going far enough”.

    I particularly liked his stirring attack on neoliberal bourgeois “free” trade. All the comments about how “free trade hurts the workers and only benefits wealthy stockholders” and “the media’s obsession with the business class betrays their own desire to prop up our capitalist oppressors” really stirred the revolutionary soul, didn’t they?

    (The big wet kiss from Maude Barlow was doubtlessly justified, though I think that part where he was carried around on the shoulders of mask-wearing anarchists was a bit much.)

    Surely, college kids will be wearing t-shirts with his face on them Real Soon Now.

  2. I’ve always said, if Paul Wells is anything, it is a pinko socialist. Besides, only commies like jazz that much…

  3. Black was right about you after all, eh?

    Just a matter of time before we see you guys on the board of Power Corp.

  4. I think Mr. Wells is from the “other side” if you know what i mean

  5. Margaret Atwood? Is it going to be similar to her article in the Globe the other day. The one where she claimed that starving artists on the dole were the only ones keeping us from becoming a totalitarian State.

  6. So have the editors of your right-wing magazine selected a candidate to endorse in the upcoming Federal election? (hint: Obama is not one of the choices)

  7. Hey Emmett : No WAY! Us Conbot Harper neo-con moonies love Jazz! Oscar Peterson is our party is our official party musician …

  8. Paul, Your story on Harper’s foreign policy is interesting.

    Foreign policy (other than Afghanistan) is clearly not Mr Harper’s strong suit. His focus has been on keeping a minority government alive. Canadians do not care about foreign policy so there has been little political advantage for him to pay attention. Another reason for his lack of interest may be that Canada is a bit player in the global scheme of things and Canada’s input isn’t as important as it used to be when Saint Lester was in charge.

    However, when I was in Tokyo in July, shortly after the G-8 summit, I was struck by the observation over lunch with a former G-8 ambassador and old friend who had been present during the the G-8 Summit in Hokkaido. He told me that Prime Minister Harper’s performance at the G-8 meetings was rated by third-party observers as impressive and that the Canadian PM had easily outshone the others there. Yeah, yeah…I realize the competition wasn’t great (after all, other G-8 leaders participating included Bush, Gordon Brown, and Fukuda). But my interlocutor had no reason to say anything nice about Harper and could easily have dismissed his performaance.

  9. You can’t know for sure but you can eyeball it based on projected returns.

    Costs relative to 2006 levels…

    Current Sector Sales $70,000.00 millions
    Sector Cap and Trade Participation 0% 50.0%
    ROI Timeframe 12 years

    Sector Inflation 2.000%
    GDP or Sector Nominal Growth 2.00%
    Interest Rate 7.000%

    Green Shift Turning the Corner
    30% 20%
    Planned Efficiency in Final Year 30.00% 36.84%

    Investment
    Plan Capital $131,737.08 $131,737.08
    less: Underinvestment $- $56,424.72
    Net Investment $131,737.08 $75,312.35

    Returns
    Industry Taxes and Levies $14,479.01 $24,409.16
    Rest of Sector Taxes and Levies $14,479.01 $-
    Fuel Dollar Return $161,257.95 $156,424.35
    less: Underinvestment $- $56,424.72
    Net Returns $190,215.98 $124,408.79
    Profit Margin 44.39% -5.56%

    Scheduled Final Year Target 30.00% 36.84%
    Timeframe Sector Sales $957,623.21 $1,096,813.56

    Two things of note:
    1) I left out the part that shows cap-and-traders can buy more Technology Fund credits than they need early while they’re cheap and be holding a whopping $50B++ on paper when they’re going for $65 a tonne.
    2) The efficiency-based targets are bogus. The moment sector growth goes over 1.5% a year the scheduled 33% won’t cut it.

    Turning the Corner is a scam.

  10. Style: Coyne has written an article claiming the Conservatives are tougher on climate change than the Liberal

    Did you read the same article the rest of us did?

  11. “… I don’t think speculators can buy credits from the Technology Fund and sell them later… ”

    You don’t, eh?

    I read the docs. Inter-firm trading is allowed and credits can be purchased to be “used” later.

    Take it from there.

  12. “Did you read the same article the rest of us did?”

    It depends on what you mean by “read”.

  13. Only dippers can claim Macleans is right-wing and not sound stupid. Libs who think Macleans is right wing because it doesn’t worship our Dear Leader (Dion) are thinking like Stalin who thought parties/people were ‘right wing’ if they didn’t agree with him about everything.

  14. Has Ken gone fishing?

  15. “…The plan lets you earn credits to use later by reducing your emissions early. It does not allow you to buy credits to use later…”

    That’s bull. If that were true there would be no reason to schedule the purchase of 4 times the credits (430.8Mt) than will be needed to fill the gap between the cap and 720 (111.8Mt) in 2010 alone.

    Its a scam that lets the capitalized players start their own cottage industry. They’ll make more out the credits than they will saving on fuel costs.

  16. “The document says firms will be able to obtain credits from the Fund that can be used towards their compliance in a given year.”

    you’re right. I read it wrong. I missed the definition of “regulatory obligation” on page 15.

    do over

    its still a scam. its targets are bogus, there’s no profit in it and we’ll still be burning more fuel at the end than when we started.

  17. mind you, I’ll still be assuming they can buy over and above what they need. It DOES say they recieve credits and it DOESN’T say they apply only to that year.

  18. Geiseric the Lame and Style

    Please don’t start another one of your half baked arguments about this or take your argument over to where you left off on Coyne’s post on unity/Harper.

    Thank you.

  19. “Please don’t start another one of your half baked arguments about this or take your argument over to where you left off on Coyne’s post on unity/Harper.”

    its a free world. why not?

  20. For the record, I’ve never thought of Macleans as a right-wing rag.

    I think its rag complete with intelligent pundits who are often too cynical (Wells, Coyne, Selley), some uber-liberals who work really hard at everything but pretending that they aren’t liberals (Wherry, O’Malley) and one otherwise unemployable Paul Martin speech writer who thinks he is a comedian (Feschuck) but isn’t funny.

  21. Curiously, fixing the error style pointed out is going to increase the government regulated levy on industry, which is already more than what it would be under the Green Shift.

    not to worry. I’ve already been turning it back in as a benefit to the bottom line since I’m looking at it from the national account perspective.

  22. Coyne is a bit incoherent in the article. But, if you accept that the projected costs of carbon credits under the two systems will be the same because of the intersection of supply and demand, how can you go on to argue that the Tory plan is weaker. You’re arguing that the Tory plan is stronger on environmental grounds (because a cap and trade system sets clear targets) – but could be more costly if the Liberals have underpriced carbon.

    I think you misunderstood. The point is that the Conservatives’ plan – and that of the NDP – will also be costly for consumers. The Liberals recognise these costs, and they attempt to deal with it. For no readily-explicable reason, it pleases the Conservatives and the NDP to pretend that their plans will not affect consumers.

    I explain this point at length here at the blog post Andrew quotes from.

  23. I suspect it has more to do with St. Dion.

    Being a Liberal, he obviously sends a tingle up certain columnist’s legs.

  24. I’ve never thought of your mag as right wing ever.

    Most of the Blogs here tilt left IMHO.

    Coyne and Wells?

    Equal opportunity pitbulls.

    Devastatingly capable of taking a chunk out of the backend of any poltico, regardless of stripe.

  25. So I guess now that Coyne is swinging to the left we can expect him to retract his assertion that the American invasion of Iraq was a “just war”?

  26. Stephen, thanks. I understand that the Turning the Corner plan will have costs – Andrew also spends some time on the first page of his article explaining that Harper understands this too and has said it publicly more than once. I still think the NDP platform overall is likely to be as progressive as the Liberal platform overall, although you have rightly challenged me or NDP supporters to prove this.

    But it is not true that the Tory plan is both as costly and less effective than the Liberal plan, as Andrew says (the Conservative plan is just as costly…and probably half as effective). It is only one of these things. I suspect the Tory plan that includes costs for emissions *above* a target will not cost as much as the Liberal plan which charges for all emissions. Andrew writes this as “as costly per tonne of emission reduced” but that really doesn’t work as a criticism – is there any plan that could make reductions cheaper to achieve? Whether you regulate the reduction, levy a tax or charge for exceeding the cap, the cost of a reduction is constant.

    Ultimately, though, it seems the difference between the plans is in the transition period to full cap and trade (unless the Tories would implement tradeable intensity credits, which seems conceptually difficult).

  27. “It is only one of these things. I suspect the Tory plan that includes costs for emissions *above* a target will not cost as much as the Liberal plan which charges for all emissions.”

    What needs to be understood about that is the Green Shift will NOT cost more than is being released up front in tax breaks. That means that money spent of fuel above the stated target is nothing more than a clawback of existing capital.

    Turning the Corner, on the other hand, will institute ADDITIONAL costs to the consumer since no additional funds are being released to the economy and those costs will be met with capital from other sources by competing with existing currency or, worse, by the incurrance of new debt.

  28. Not to mention the cost of bureaucracy, public and private, that will have to go with it.

    At least the Green Shift is based on something governments do well. Tax, that is. Regulatory bodies are scary animals.

  29. The NDP version, btw, is nothing short of additonal tax-and-spend. Jack likes to think he’ll be sticking it to the man but we all know damn well those costs will make their way downstream.

  30. Aside from funds out of nowhere and a brand new layer of bureaucy, Turning the Corner’s weakest link is its efficiency-based targets.

    They’re bogus.

    1.18 * 720 – 33% * 1.18 * 720 = 580 = 20% below 2006 levels. Close enough for rock and roll. That’s the outcome at 1.5% growth. BUT, at 2.0% growth…

    1.24 * 720 – 33% * 1.18 * 720 isn’t.

    There isn’t a word in the documents about recalibrating the targets relative to growth. Even if there were they get to be unrealistic pretty damn quickly.

  31. of course that should read…

    1.24 * 720 – 33% * 1.24 * 720 isn’t.

  32. “The point is that, if both output and emissions increase at the same rate, your total emissions go up but your intensity is constant.”

    you’re a lying sack

    nice work if you can get it.

  33. 1.18 and 1.24 are precisely what is being factored IN to the formula by using efficiency-based targets.

    you CAN’T factor them out without changing the rules.

    good job serving your master. ya oil splot.

  34. and btw, its entirely UNCLEAR what’s meant by efficiency targets when it comes to the Technology Fund. Once Harper figures out exactly how stupid we all are the regulations themselves will come out.

    then we can talk about risk-free.

  35. and don’t give me any lectures about the intent of the fund. this entire election is the result of one Fascist’s interpretation of the intent of a his own law.

  36. No. Those numbers demonstrate if production grows at anything besides 1.5% the efficiency-based targets fail miserably. I didn’t say you serve the Tories but by glossing over the glaring flaw in their plan you DO serve the same master.

  37. not emmissions, production. that’s what efficiency-based targets are all about.

    year 1 GDP/Production = 1

    year 12 GDP/Production @ 1.5% growth = 1.18
    year 12 GDP/Production @ 2.0% growth = 1.24

  38. “1.18 * 720 – 33% * 1.18 * 720 = 580 = 20% below 2006 levels.”

    You weren’t arguing that GDP would be 20% below 2006 levels in 2017. You might be assuming that the ratio of production to emissions remains constant over the intervening years – but you called me a “lying sack” for saying that earlier…

  39. you’re an idiot

  40. If the Conservatives applied their own efficiency-based standards to the Liberal track record they’d have no issue with it.

    Of course, they can’t so they won’t.

Sign in to comment.