Unanimous agreement, at least in principle

As noted earlier today, Thomas Mulcair is keen on the principle of “polluter pay.” In principle, he is not alone.

Stephen Harper, February 7, 2007Mr. Speaker, this government is clear: our system will be based on the principle that the polluter will pay.

Stephen Harper, February 8, 2007We will continue to pursue the principle of polluter-pay.

Stephen Harper, February 21, 2007.  We think the basis of regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollution should be the polluter pay principle, and this will be the basis of the plans we bring forward.

Stephen Harper, June 11, 2007We are also committed to respecting the polluter pay principle. This principle is part of our plan.

John Baird, June 19, 2007We believe in the fundamental principle that the polluter pays…

John Baird, March 11, 2008Mr. Speaker, polluter pays is one of the principles of our plan.

John Baird, May 5, 2010Mr. Speaker, this government has two important tenets with respect to its environmental policies: first, we support strong and effective environmental legislation that protects the great country that we know as Canada; and second, this government strongly supports a polluter pays principle. Those have been the hallmarks of our policies.




Browse

Unanimous agreement, at least in principle

  1. Maybe the polluters PAID… the CPC.

    • Sorry for piggybacking, KeithBram but I have no spot to post a comment.
      I’m sure Aaron checked thoroughly and can’t find a thing since 2010. I’m wondering if we are phasing out one Conservative ‘truth’ while starting the beginnings of another ‘truth’. “the great country that we know as Canada” . . . right now The only question is, will it be Harperland officially, or will it be States number 53 through 66?

      • No prob; I get the same problem at work a lot (IE8) – and lately Disqus won’t load at all when I use IE9 at home. Seems to work OK with Google Chrome though.

        So states 51 and 52 are…?

        • Costa Rica and what’s the other protectorate?

          • Hmm, maybe it isn’t Costa Rica, either. Anyway, the protectorates. Oh, the U.S. Virgin Islands! That’s one.

          • and guam. And i htink American Samoa if it isn’t one of the virgin islands

          • and guam. And i htink American Samoa if it isn’t one of the virgin islands

          • Puerto Rico
            Subject: [macleansca] Re: Unanimous agreement, at least in principle

          • Thanks guys. Rica, Rico, I knew it was something. Yes, now I’ll have to find out what the U.S. Virgin Islands consists of. Always with the homework!

        • This is a test. Not happy with you Disqus, this will be the last straw,

          • Jan, I hope you can see this, also Keith and 2Jenn. I have not been able to access comments here for a month when I come via MS Explorer — I sent a message to Aaron via Twitter, and the GM called me — for some reason, there seems to be something “broken” between Explorer and Macleans (and most people use Explorer so that explains why so many regulars aren’t here any more) — but we experimented and I can get on absolutely fine using Firefox. ?? WTF, don’t know — and yes it’s a hassle having to switch out browsers all the time but it’s still not fixed.

          • I can see this, finally, after switching to Chrome from IE 9. It seems to be something unique to Macleans because I could use other sites using this new version.

          • Jan, I hope you can see this, also Keith and 2Jenn. I have not been able to access comments here for a month when I come via MS Explorer — I sent a message to Aaron via Twitter, and the GM called me — for some reason, there seems to be something “broken” between Explorer and Macleans (and most people use Explorer so that explains why so many regulars aren’t here any more) — but we experimented and I can get on absolutely fine using Firefox. ?? WTF, don’t know — and yes it’s a hassle having to switch out browsers all the time but it’s still not fixed.

  2. Economists aren’t that far away from incorporating AGW into models. You just have to assume traumatizing weather events will happen and become the norm. These might not happen. Maybe figure out a scaleable carbon sequester, magically R+D GMO crops and/or low-footprint water filtration (especially for industrial uses), in time. But from my appreciation of the technologies involved, especially GMO crops…is slow progress. Call it 85% likely.
    When AGW causes an event that kills our petro exports (after last spring I’m 100% sure this would be the response to losing 10% of world’s people, for example), what is our response? A decade either way of 2035, there will be crop failures. Around 2030 there will be floods (might not be that traumatizing globally) in the Himalayas. 2040-2045, start to dry out. Not just the famines and droughts, but no more China manufacturing: our export market (via resource prices if anything)!! Behaviour of monsoons might be okay, or might wipe India right off the map.
    Unlike other nations that will have to deal with starvation and floods, we are a little immune. But our current export dependancy kills us, especially petro!
    You own children will be fucked. I don’t have any.

  3. If one is truly committed to polluter pay, then the only efficient and fair way of dealing with CO2 pollution is a carbon tax. I look forward to hearing politicians advance this solution (although for some reason I won’t be holding my breath).

    • You do know that B.C., Alberta and Quebec already, have a carbon tax.?

      • Living in BC I am aware of it here, at least. However, I was quite imprecise in my original statement. I should have said “I look forward to hearing federal politicians advance this solution …”. Ever since Stephan Dion’s green shift plan flamed out, there hasn’t been a peep about a carbon tax at the federal level; other than the CPC shooting down any thought of it.

        I’ll also add that BC’s carbon tax seems rather toothless. I believe it’s supposed to end up at 7.2c/l for gas sometime this year. Assuming the intent, among other things, is to make people change their driving behaviour, then it would have to be significantly larger than that to effect real change, I suspect.

        So, if Thomas Mulcair is really concerned about Dutch disease and internalizing environmental costs, he should be advocating for a carbon tax at the federal level. At least nobody could accuse him of pitting East against West if he did.

Sign in to comment.