‘I understand but I don’t care’


Mike Moffatt concludes a post on carbon taxation with a new resolution.

I am quite certain the response to this post will be a litany of political reasons why the Liberals and Conservatives cannot propose sensible policies.  I understand but I don’t care. My hope is that if enough of us keep advocating sensible public policy it may become popular enough to become politically feasible.  I want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.


‘I understand but I don’t care’


    I feel so much better.

  2. The major flaw in democracies….sensible policies aren't possible.

  3. A tax on carbon would amount to an unnecessary expense on taxpayers for no reason other than to defer further debate on the weather and our inability to change or alter it.

  4. Good luck with that Mike. Maybe after the regime change in Canada we can have rational discussion on many topics again. Until then, not so much.

    Also take note Green Party, a vote for you is a vote for the status quo. Vote splitting with the NDP and Liberals hasn't advanced your policies one iota.

  5. It would be so nice to have a really sensible dictator, eh? Make the high-speed rail run on time, lock up all those traitors to the environment that keep insisting on their so-called "free speech" and "property rights," and all that…

  6. No, it would be nice to have a sensible electorate.

  7. In fact, in the last election when voting for the liberals would have implemented the Green Party policies and voting Green would roll them back, a record number voted Green. It's not about the policies; the party should run candidates whose names start with Z and change its name to "None of the above".

  8. So, you're in the Kent Brockman camp then eh "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.", or is it just that you are bitter that more your idea of "sensible" isn't sensible to others.

  9. No, I don't watch cartoons

    "Democracy depends on an informed populace"

    Thomas Jefferson

  10. Rather a sensible dictator, Oh, Objectivist Dream! than the one we have now.

  11. Thanks for the kind words. I'd love to be Canada's Kent Brockman.

    The point isn't that "more your idea of "sensible" isn't sensible to others." Proposals should be debated on their merits. If a carbon tax is a bad idea, then let's hear the arguments against it and we'll work from there.

    The point *is* however, is that saying an idea is 'politically unfeasible' just shuts down debate and is presented with little to no evidence. Saying "yeah, a carbon tax is nice, but you can't sell it" is equivalent to this, IMO:

    Eventually, Decca Records rejected the Beatles, saying that "guitar groups are on the way out" and "the Beatles have no future in show business"

    Furthermore, I want to see the party that will implement the best policies in power. I couldn't care less what colour their lawn signs are. I recognize this puts me in a minority but I'm okay with that.

  12. So I spent the weekend at a policy rally for a political party. My vote counted.

    Where were all of you?

  13. I'm actually more in favour of a straight carbon tax than a cap-and-trade system, just because the former has the benefit of simplicity. It's worked reasonably well in BC, and people got so angry about the HST they forgot to be made about the carbon tax.

    Although here it was kept revenue-neutral, so it was mainly a transfer of taxation from income to carbon, rather than being a new revenue source. I suspect that would be the best way to manage things federally instead (if we want to raise money, we can increase corporate taxes and taxes on the upper income-levels back to where they were before Harper got in – he's lowered them substantially which is part of why we're short of revenue), as a carbon tax would be politically difficult regardless, and making it revenue neutral would reduce, although certainly not eliminate, the strength of opposition to it.

  14. The flaw in democracies is that most people are idiots.

    The flaw in dictatorships is that most people are idiots – and it's incredibly hard to get rid of the idiot in charge.

  15. Oh, the huge manateee!

  16. So how much have they reduced the greenhouse gas emissions in that time?

  17. Unfortunately, the Liberals experience with the Green Shift was a bit traumatic. And the Conservatives aren't serious about the issue. So this issue is going to stay on the back burner for at least another generation IMO.

    For my part, I think that you're right. A straight carbon tax is the right solution if we ever decide to get serious about addressing the issue.

  18. Hahaha, good one. The only thing conservatives know how to reduce is a budget surplus.

  19. Is it that you don't know, or just don't want to say?

  20. Well, it is encouraging to see that some economics bloggers are FINALLYrealizing that you can't simply cut taxes (CIT in particular) without making up the resulting revenue loss while Canada has a structural deficit.

  21. Why would you watch cartoons? You ARE a cartoon!

    And for someone who constantly goes on about looking to the future rather than the past, and who thinks all Americans are idiots: you probably shouldn't be quoting an American president who's been dead for 185 years.

  22. You've come to the wrong place if you're looking for "sensible".

  23. So…..you have no argument to make.

    Thanks for passing by.

  24. Is there any evidence that the Conservative party believes that human activity affects the earth's climate? Certainly, all of the global warming deniers are pretty much lined up on the Conservative side.

  25. I watched movies on my computer and fantasized about moving to Los Angeles and working under the table as an illegal immigrant, so that I'd have less depressing things than Canadian politics to think about.

    [Note to whichever border services personnel google me in the future: this comment is intended as humor only, and is in no way indicative of a sincere intention to skirt the immigration legislation of any sovereign state.]

  26. Gettin' loaded.

  27. Voting for the Liberals is a vote for the Conservatives. Or hasn't anyone noticed that both parties tend to govern by poll in an attempt to get re-elected. I would never trust either party to implement a policy. Mike Harris was an oddity, as you got what you voted for in him. Harper is like McGuinty – promises? What promises?

    If you want Green policies, vote Green. If you want more of the same, vote Conservative or Liberal.

  28. Furthermore, I want to see the party that will implement the best policies in power. I couldn't care less what colour their lawn signs are. I recognize this puts me in a minority but I'm okay with that.

  29. Furthermore, I want to see the party that will implement the best policies in power.

    I direct your attention to the last two words of that statement. If the Green Party work hard and have an incredible stroke of luck, they might end up with one MP after the next election.

  30. I think what you fail to grasp is that the entire premise that carbon is evil is so deeply irretrievably flawed that, God willing, it is going no where. What part of the climate is always changing do you dumb as posts moralists fail to comprehend? That fact that some loser scientists who will study and proscribe anything as long as they keep getting funded is pretty well established in the public record. Just as PNAC sought a new Pearl Harbor, globalists and bureaucrats have sought a ubiquitous tax. It is called a carbon tax. Are you really this without wit or understanding of cause and effect?

  31. I don't think this jab is justified. The blog Mike writes at has spent a great deal of time examining the budget balance, and has just put up a great post on the topic.

  32. Your post is as well-argued as it is grammatical, sir. Congratulations on continuing to extend the Macblog standard.

  33. Yep – I've supported various Green politicians in the past and will again in the future. I make no effort to deny or hide it. Already stated publicly that I'll be voting for my good friend Mary Anne Hodge in London North Centre.

    What little support I provide to the Greens is contingent on them (in my view) having the best policies. If the Conservatives or Liberals or someone else came up with a better set of proposals, I'd support them instead. I want to see the party that will implement the best policies in power. I couldn't care less what colour their lawn signs are.

  34. a great deal of time examining the budget balance


    and has just put up a great post on the topic.

    That was what I was referring to.

  35. I don't have any problem with your party affiliations. In fact, weren't you the president of the LNC Green Party EDA?

    I was simply calling you out on your supposed non partisanship.

  36. Seems like a lifetime ago, but yes, I was. I'm not active right now for any party, but I wouldn't rule it out in the future.

    But to me the parties should be a means to an end – the end being improving public policy in Canada. The difficulty arises when getting members of a party elected becomes the end itself.

  37. How many posts have we had on WCI about raising the GST back to 2006 levels? 20? 25? 30?

  38. Did you miss the part where I quoted Peter Kent? I'll repeat it here:

    “Climate change is one of the most serious environmental issues facing the world today,” declared Peter Kent, the new environment minister, in a recent speech before the Economic Club of Canada. Kent didn't wink when he spoke those words. He didn't smirk. He was emphatic and, apparently, sincere. The Conservative government “is determined to do our part for the planet,” he said….

  39. Not the same, as Georgian pointed out.

    It should be noted that both you and SG have undergrad training in both Economics and Political Science, and I would submit are refelcted in both of your blogs and tweets. NR on the other hand, I find, is much more politically neutral, although definitely right leaning.

  40. Let us hope he is only being politicaly correct. The staggering lies, bogus computer models and cooked and edited raw data, combined with the fact it is all under the aegis of Chairman Mo's program and the mind numbing "stupidification" of our population by the mis-representations of Suzuki et al as well as perhaps well-intentioned, but chained to the program academics…whose families insist on eating.

    You miss the Goebbles factor in all this. No one in the "denier" camp is advocating willy nilly pollution. We are advocating honest science to counter the well laid plans of the UN to impose a global tax to sustain a lie and to overcome the last impediment to global socialism, private property and the historic rights that attach to it.. Lenin would characterize your contributons as those of useful idiot…I'm sure Mo would agree. Keep digging, your children will curse your efforts once they learn to think for themselves and discover they are slaves to a global hegemon that considers them useless eaters.

Sign in to comment.