10

BTC: Fight illiteracy


 

Here’s Jason Kenney, delivering his book report in Question Period yesterday.

“Mr. Speaker, I took the time to read the Liberal tax trick document this afternoon and it is a funny thing. There is not one single page in it about actually reducing carbon emissions, not one page.”

At the time, this seemed a pretty good point. A stinging rebuke. 

At least so long as you didn’t actually read the document the Liberals released on Thursday.

Here’s the top paragraph of page 16.

“Canadians know Canada won’t meet its obligations under the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol. However, the Kyoto Protocol is an ongoing international effort, and we must build momentum now in order to close that gap in the next phase of the agreement, after 2012. We believe that our target should be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. This should be increased to at least 25 per cent if other countries take on comparable efforts. This is in line with what the science tells us we need to do. We must achieve absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and we must begin today. Canada cannot solve climate change on its own. Until we take serious action to reduce our own emissions, we will have little credibility on the global stage to ensure other countries are doing their part.”

In his press conference an hour earlier, Kenney cited the opinion of economist Mark Jaccard as reported by the Toronto Sun this week. Here’s the paragraph he apparently saw:

“No politician, economist or environmentalist has ever implied an environmental tax shift would mean everyone is equally well off as before,” said Mark Jaccard, a Simon Fraser University climate expert and author of Hot Air. “Some people will be better off and some won’t.”

And here’s what the Sun’s Peter Zimonjic wrote in the three paragraphs that followed.

The strength in the idea of a carbon tax, say supporters, is it’s cheap to implement and it hits everyone in society rather than just taxing industry, which is only responsible for half of Canada’s emissions.

“When they implemented the carbon tax in B.C., they didn’t have to hire one person,” said Jaccard. “They simply amended the tax calculation. Regulating is more expensive to the economy as a whole and for individuals.”

Jaccard, a leading environmental economist, explains the Conservative plan to regulate industry’s emissions, and not everyone who emits carbon, is folly because industry is only responsible for half of Canada’s carbon output.


 

BTC: Fight illiteracy

  1. Call me elitist, but I would support a test to ensure that MPs have at least minimal brain function before allowing them to take their seats in the House. Re-testing every two years (kind of like those exhaustive security checks for ministers – just in case they’ve been convicted of a major crime while in cabinet and nobody noticed) would not be a bad idea either.

  2. Call me elitist, but I would support a test to ensure that MPs have at least minimal brain function before allowing them to take their seats in the House. Re-testing every two years (kind of like those exhaustive security checks for ministers – just in case they’ve been convicted of a major crime while in cabinet and nobody noticed) would not be a bad idea either.

  3. I also read the document, and I think it’s safe to say that KEnney has….no….idea…. what he’s talking about. Why is the minister of..err…something else… talking about the environment? Isn’t that Baird’s job?

  4. Baird’s job?

    Arr arr arr!!! ARRR *GROWL* ARRR!!! AR arr arr arr!

  5. Um, is anyone actually surprised that the Tories would come out and spout non-factual nonsense? The sad part is that the unthinking conservative masses (think: Wayne) swallow it up, hook, line, and sinker. People don’t bother to read things, and the media (apart from the good people at Macleans, of course) don’t bother to give in-depth reporting. Or the media treats every viewpoint as equally valid or correct, and every difference of opinion as reasonable.

  6. For what it’s worth – the NDP also say it won’t reduce green houses gases…hmmmm…the Suzuki Foundation has confirmed it WILl reduce green house gases.

    You know, with all this PANIC attack and bash it would seem that Dion has something here and the CPC and NDP are in panic mode, otherwise why would they have these panic press conferences, panic remarks….what’s the hurry?

  7. Thank you Dean an insult from you is like a compliment from anyone else as I am a proud 100% Conservative non thinking member of a mass or whatever you were talking about. So let’s see if I got this right the Fiberals Shifty Plan has been recomended by the Suzuki foundation well that certainly makes me feel better. I wonder what the algorithm was to determine how much tax decreases and how much of a decreas in emmissions – let me see hmmmmm nope sorry folks the domain is far too large and there are way to many variables for any analysis that could be remotely considered usefull much like some of the latest climate models that don’t include the UV stat’s from solar activity or the temp gradients in the oceans – ipcc says if they do it skews their numbers DUH! so the only dishonesty that is being foisted on Canadians is that this plan will reduce emmissions by anything remotely considered to be a signicant amount as it would be a guess flat and simple, but wait don’t let my opinion stop anyone from believing anything from the people that bought you Kyoto, Sponsorship etc etc etc. But remember this ” shift happens and then it flows down hill ” to where the poor people live because that is going to be will shoulder Stephanies last Hail Mary and that is for sure.

  8. I ask again… Yes Conservatives we have seen you’re “funny” retorts, ads and websites.

    Can we see an idea now?

  9. sorry. you’re = your.

  10. Heather, call me a crazy idealist, but I think that’s our job as voters.

Sign in to comment.