Meeting Kyoto 'bad economic policy': Baird
- Thread starter CBC News
- Start date
That guy is a joke, for once he should tell the whole truth and not only concentrate on keeping his own funding.
Yeah, at first a few jobs will be lost and some companies will even lose money. But with meeting the Kyoto terms and accordingly building up several new energy sources and new technology basically everywhere a entirely new market will open up and more money than ever will flow.
Yeah, at first a few jobs will be lost and some companies will even lose money. But with meeting the Kyoto terms and accordingly building up several new energy sources and new technology basically everywhere a entirely new market will open up and more money than ever will flow.
If you live in fantasy-land maybe.
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2007/01/we_cant_get_to_.html#more
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2007/01/we_cant_get_to_.html#more
So I note that the Conservatives are making environmental claims without doing any research, yet again. Ms. Ambrose, the first Environment minister admitted to one member of the Senate that the Government had never done any sort of environmental study. So I am forced to conclude that Baird is just making numbers up or using some overly naive calculation.
People need to look to the example that PEI is setting. This in a poor province! Using your head a little bit, you quickly must conclude that jobs will be created by attempting to meet Kyoto targets, we don't have the technology to reduce emissions efficiently yet! We know that they can be produced, but we need someone to make them. New jobs. Now we need someone to install them. New jobs again. Who exactly is going to lose their jobs? The old construction companies? No, they will just train their employees in the new techniques. New jobs agin! Hey, we could even sell our technology globally, wouldn't that be grand?
People need to look to the example that PEI is setting. This in a poor province! Using your head a little bit, you quickly must conclude that jobs will be created by attempting to meet Kyoto targets, we don't have the technology to reduce emissions efficiently yet! We know that they can be produced, but we need someone to make them. New jobs. Now we need someone to install them. New jobs again. Who exactly is going to lose their jobs? The old construction companies? No, they will just train their employees in the new techniques. New jobs agin! Hey, we could even sell our technology globally, wouldn't that be grand?
The study assumes the carbon tax Canada imposes will be multiples of anything previously assigned anywhere on the planet, fails to both offset any of its revenues against existing surpluses or consider purchasing the maximum allowable international carbon credits. It extrapolates job loss from GDP projections rather than identify at-risk sectors and net-new opportunities and assumes the prognosticated GDP downturn impact would only be absorbed by private income not corporate profits (not that much of a stretch when you think about it - heh) .
good job, Rusty.
good job, Rusty.
Last edited:
Why get your panties all in a knot anyway? We produce 2.3% of the globe's carbon emissions. China is barrelling ahead and will easily fill any gap in the supply that we create. Increasingly, it looks as though the spin doctors have one goal only: shipping our hard earned bucks overseas to purchase credits and line some offshore bureaucracy's pockets.
Toro that's a good link, it's a little picture of the debate. The debate, environment versus the economy, while I have no doubt that the econ will take a big hit it's not what we need to concentrate on. It's already been determined that under the present economic system kyoto will not work, the foxes will not look after the chickens.
The tipping points been passed we're phucked. Mr Baird would have us believe that we can sustainably operate an econmy without air or water. The problems have been left to the economy far to long, it's no longer a matter of saving our modern western lifestyles but saving the species itself, and that's going to be a long shot, we ain't going nowhere without the bees and the birds.
The tipping points been passed we're phucked. Mr Baird would have us believe that we can sustainably operate an econmy without air or water. The problems have been left to the economy far to long, it's no longer a matter of saving our modern western lifestyles but saving the species itself, and that's going to be a long shot, we ain't going nowhere without the bees and the birds.
I can see them on the tradeing room floors all dressed in hazmat suits, a big fan blowing the soot and smog off the digital boards.:lol:
Nothing more than political fear mongering as the Tories prepare to unveil their own plan to reduce GHG emissions. Meeting Kyoto is not necessary, it is simply a target but in politics everything is an absolute and it's nothing but smoke an mirrors. The VP of suncor, a major player in the oil sands, said a month or so ago that staying committed to Kyoto would only affect them marginally......doesn't sound scary to me.
Also Baird dosen't take into account the negative effects of climate change (something he and Harper suddenly believe) on our and the worlds economy.
Also Baird dosen't take into account the negative effects of climate change (something he and Harper suddenly believe) on our and the worlds economy.
Baird's claims on the economic cost of climate change are so dramatically wrong it's hard to know where to begin. As someone has already pointed out this claim (according to the G&M this morning, and many critics) purposefully ignores the jobs in research and development, new technologies, retraining and new green industry that will be generated from creating incentives for a greener economy.
It also falls into the exact trap that thinking like Kyoto is trying to get us out of and that is not accounting for the cost of inaction. As long as we do not factor into economic accounting the cost of high energy use, the cost of fossil fuels, the cost of deforestation, of water pollution we are not taking an accurate account of very real costs.
It also falls into the exact trap that thinking like Kyoto is trying to get us out of and that is not accounting for the cost of inaction. As long as we do not factor into economic accounting the cost of high energy use, the cost of fossil fuels, the cost of deforestation, of water pollution we are not taking an accurate account of very real costs.
In the article the Government, rather fallaciously, claims that the previous Government did nothing to provide funding to Canadians for the fix. I'm reminded of the flip flop on energy incentive programs which were cut then re-introduced. Then we have the Government giving money to Ontario to help move away from coal. Excellent, but where is that same level of committment to the rest of Canada?
We don't even need to talk about a carbon tax, as we had a tax allready generating revenue, and even with the cut to GST we still run a surplus. Seems the Canadian economy was producing enough to use for more spending elsewhere, instead of bringing in new tax. GST seems to be a perfect tax to use in my eyes. The movement of goods is helping generate more emissions, so in essence the GST were it not cut could be used as a revenue generating fund to increase efficiency and clean up our act.
What does the economic gurus believe it will cost? I seem to remeber $30 Billion being thrown around somewhere, but it could be up or down from that figure. Well we havea little more than 4 years until 2012, and with the GST cut, isn't it something like $4.5 billion, that's approximately 3/5 of the figure. Some ingenuity I'm sure must be found somewhere in Ottawa that can find the other 2/5 somewhere in our economy...
It just seems to me like the Government wants to give up before they even try. Not too mention the last year we've wasted....
We don't even need to talk about a carbon tax, as we had a tax allready generating revenue, and even with the cut to GST we still run a surplus. Seems the Canadian economy was producing enough to use for more spending elsewhere, instead of bringing in new tax. GST seems to be a perfect tax to use in my eyes. The movement of goods is helping generate more emissions, so in essence the GST were it not cut could be used as a revenue generating fund to increase efficiency and clean up our act.
What does the economic gurus believe it will cost? I seem to remeber $30 Billion being thrown around somewhere, but it could be up or down from that figure. Well we havea little more than 4 years until 2012, and with the GST cut, isn't it something like $4.5 billion, that's approximately 3/5 of the figure. Some ingenuity I'm sure must be found somewhere in Ottawa that can find the other 2/5 somewhere in our economy...
It just seems to me like the Government wants to give up before they even try. Not too mention the last year we've wasted....
Year and a quarter, the deliberate incompetency of which can only be emphasized by pointing out that Ambrose stood in parliament claiming the Conservatives had a "very thorough policy" for the environment a full year before that.
Just to point out something posted by BitWhys
Good point, and a good idea of the fluidity of the odd concept of our "responsibilities" to the rest of the world in the eyes of certain types- on the environment, we're somehow insignificant, but in the wars for oil (or versus terror if you still enjoy the bubble wrap) we are VITAL and have a HUGE debt to be paid
I don't get it- are we insignificant, or one of the most important countries on earth???
Good point, and a good idea of the fluidity of the odd concept of our "responsibilities" to the rest of the world in the eyes of certain types- on the environment, we're somehow insignificant, but in the wars for oil (or versus terror if you still enjoy the bubble wrap) we are VITAL and have a HUGE debt to be paid
I don't get it- are we insignificant, or one of the most important countries on earth???
As the web site posted stated - from an economist who BTW greatly admires the Scandanavian model - you can get to Kyoto targets without it being an enormous detriment to the country, just not in the time frame mentioned in the Kyoto Agreement.