Joe Oliver’s turn with the talking points

by Aaron Wherry

Apropos of nothing, Joe Oliver’s office released “a statement from Minister Joe Oliver on the NDP’s carbon tax plan” late this afternoon. It is mostly a review of the familiar talking points.

Here, again, are the reasons why this is farcical.

Mr. Oliver first ran as a candidate for the Conservative party in 2008 when the Conservative party’s platform included a promise to “work with the provinces and territories and our NAFTA trading partners in the United States and Mexico, at both the national and state levels, to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, with implementation to occur between 2012 and 2015.”

I’ve asked Mr. Oliver’s office whether he objected to cap-and-trade at the time.




Browse

Joe Oliver’s turn with the talking points

  1. I’m paraphrasing here, but how do you know when a Conservative is lying? Their lips are moving.
    Honestly they don’t even try and hide it anymore, ref the GOP Convention and every single thing about it. The strange hybrid of Bush and Romney that exists up here is no different.

  2. I don’t know why the mainstream media keeps on this anti-conservative witch-hunt.

    Comparing what the Harper Tories say today to the things they used to say is GROSSLY unfair. At least this particular example isn’t part of the ridiculous liberal conspiracy theory that pre-2006 Stephen Harper and post-2006 Stephen Harper are the same person. Or a rehashing of the LUDICROUS notion that the Harper Tories once thought that the way that Jean Chretien went about managing a majority government was somehow something less than awesome.

  3. Ah yes, the same Joe Oliver who told a national television audience that, by the time the resource extraction corporations finish renovating the tailing ponds in the oils sands, we’ll be able to fish and swim in them. The man is unrealistically optimistic,woefully ignorant, hopelessly deluded or an inveterate liar.

    • May we pick only one?

  4. Why ask his office? We all know Oliver is just the monkey. The organ grinder works at the PMO.

  5. I’d prefer a carbon tax – modelled on BC’s well-designed one – to cap-and-trade; it seems like a simpler and less convoluted method, and thus one likely to have fewer loopholes. Offset the carbon tax with an income-tax cut tied to income levels, and you don’t change the amount of money available to people, just the incentives they have to spend it on emissions-intensive rather than low-emissions activities.

    We’re going to have to come to terms with global climate change, and the sooner we do so the better. It will happen regardless – we’ve pumped enough CO2 into the air over the last century to see to that – but it’s well past time we started taking action to minimize the damage. Ensuring that the actual costs of climate change are reflected in our economic decision-making is a first step towards this. Dealing with negative externalities is something even conservative economists recognize as a legitimate function of government.

    • You mean the BC “plan” that isn’t going to count (i.e. exempt) the emissions from the LNG liquefaction facilities that are being in Prince Rupert and Kitimat, because they would blow BC’s “plan” to smithereens if they counted them.

      Liquefying natural gas consumes a lot of natural gas. BC is exempting these carbon emissions (well, because the royalties from $15 natgas, the world price, will be more than the current North American natgas price, $2.75).

      LNG makes a complete farce and fraud of BC’s so-called “cap-n-trade” plan.

      Labour in Australia and the Obamacrats in the US are increasing exports of thermal coal to Asia as fast as they can. US coal states are mostly blue states.

      • That should be “BC’s carbon tax plan”, not “BC’s cap’n'trade plan”

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *