At least he is a happier guy than the gay butler who posts all the graphs.
Government kills independent science body
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
That was a thoughtful and interesting response, Captain. Much of it I agree with to a point and I will not spoil this with nitpicking. I disagree mainly in the degree, of course, as was clear. Paying down debt is to a significant extent, a trade problem
Also, North America is not a high tax area relative to other developed countries.
But, I will leave it where it is rather than have discussion bogged down with detail.
The introduction of Lougheed's declaration is interesting and useful. I have long considered this question to be a greater threat to Canada than ever the Quebec problem was. The ROC can not continue for long the lack of response to the destruction of their economies by the reckless development of certain resources.
This will become a Constitutional issue and I have to question Lougheed's conclusion that the ruling will favour complete control of resources by the Provinces. There is an overarching convention that the federal government governs where the effects are national. It develops from the principle of Peace, Order and Good Government, which is not just the bland expression that so many think.
Even with the Court stacked by Harper, I believe that we have a Court that will put its duty first and not politics.
But, whichever way the ruling goes spells disaster. Not only will the provinces that will continue to be hurt be forced to react against, primarily, Alberta, the whole world is already losing patience. There is, within a few years, going to be a huge backlash against Canada for allowing this to continue. It is not for nothing that many International bodies are now bluntly saying that there are only a few years left to act against emissions: it is not for nothing that around the there is growing condemnation of the Oil Sands and their rapidly increasing contribution to the world's greatest problem.
Also, North America is not a high tax area relative to other developed countries.
But, I will leave it where it is rather than have discussion bogged down with detail.
The introduction of Lougheed's declaration is interesting and useful. I have long considered this question to be a greater threat to Canada than ever the Quebec problem was. The ROC can not continue for long the lack of response to the destruction of their economies by the reckless development of certain resources.
This will become a Constitutional issue and I have to question Lougheed's conclusion that the ruling will favour complete control of resources by the Provinces. There is an overarching convention that the federal government governs where the effects are national. It develops from the principle of Peace, Order and Good Government, which is not just the bland expression that so many think.
Even with the Court stacked by Harper, I believe that we have a Court that will put its duty first and not politics.
But, whichever way the ruling goes spells disaster. Not only will the provinces that will continue to be hurt be forced to react against, primarily, Alberta, the whole world is already losing patience. There is, within a few years, going to be a huge backlash against Canada for allowing this to continue. It is not for nothing that many International bodies are now bluntly saying that there are only a few years left to act against emissions: it is not for nothing that around the there is growing condemnation of the Oil Sands and their rapidly increasing contribution to the world's greatest problem.
Out of the 1.5% of total global emissions that Canada is responsible for, how much is oil sands?
At present it is about 7% - or was of the 2% pre recession. It is slated to increase fourfold in the nexte decade or so. That makes it the biggest single industrial source in the world.
So, how many projects should be allowed to continue because, singly they are only one tenth of one percent or whatever of the world's total? There are many countries and industries that would like exemption for their pet projects. Are you or we more deserving of a exempt from responsibility status.
Add them up and kiss the future goodbye.
I too will refrain from splitting hairs, although I will say this. The relative differences in taxation levels between nations must be specifically analyzed between those nations with which you are competing in the sector(s) of interest
I do not have 'the solution' however, I believe that the starting point originates with efforts in the nation evolving on a parallel and progressive basis. Leaving one (or a few) sectors 'behind' is as equally damaging as hobbling the growth in other sectors.
\
I believe that it has to exist as a constitutional issue. There are marked differences between each jurisdiction in terms of how the dynamic exists between all regions. Let's face the reality - an impact in one region will have an effect on the entire nation. Obviously, the magnitudes will differ, but the principle remains.
What absolutely defies logic from my perspective is that the oil sands (it's a good, extreme example) is vilified for the economic hardships felt in other jurisdictions as opposed to being viewed as an opportunity... Why hasn't Ontario taken advantage of the refining, logistical and trading opportunities on this?
The p/l's exist (need to be reversed) so the capital and time intensive infrastructure is already there along with the actual refineries. I can make the same argument for LNG facilities to supply Europe, tons of gas throughout the WCSB that is trading for next to nothing in Canada and has a strong value in Europe and Asia.
As jurisdictional economies change within Canada, there will always be a relative inequality (wrong word but hopefully you get the gist) and impact. Alberta is the present target, but that can easily change as time moves forward. The province that is the 'target' is incidental as per this discussion.
In the end, the enviro issue, especially as it pertains to emissions, is somewhat skewed. Extraction and refining of bitumen is energy intensive - no question about that. However, the observation that the steel industry, mining and manufacturing (ie auto) are equally intensive (if not moreso). Targeting the oil sands as the big culprit is only looking at one part of a larger equation... Alberta's big beef is that these sectors appear to be given a free pass relative to the discussion. The obvious interpretation is that this is solely a money grab at an industry that is (currently) profitable while those industries that are struggling (ie mfgrs) are not even mentioned despite emitting what are huge amounts equal to or larger than the oilsands.
Historically, the shoe has been on the other foot (ie NEP). In that situation, the logic was that squeezing one region (AB) was to the benefit of all Canadians. In retrospect, we know what the long term economic effects were; people can assess whether it was for the good or the bad.
With that said, my question is this: Does promoting a devalued currency to support the manufacturing sector benefit all Canadians (overall) or is the cost in terms of hurting other sectors and increasing the relative cost of living to all Canadians justify the proposed actions?
Canadian economy is facing “significant economic repercussions” by neglecting green practices: panel
OTTAWA-Canadian businesses are facing “significant economic repercussions” that will affect the country’s growth and international competitiveness because of inadequate policies to ensure environmental stewardship through the lifespan of products, says a new report released Wednesday by a doomed federal advisory panel.
The research by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy was requested last year by Environment Minister Peter Kent and included multiple consultations with officials from government, businesses and academics to research the emerging issues.
The report, entitled Canada’s Opportunity: Adopting Life Cycle Approaches for Sustainable Development, noted that foreign governments have already started to introduce regulations that set minimum environmental standards on products such as requiring fuels to have a cleaner environmental footprint, restricting the trade and market access of Canadian companies.
“The risk that Canadian companies are not prepared for existing and future foreign government regulations that require Life Cycle Approaches has significant economic repercussions,” said the report, led by policy adviser Hilary Davies from the round table.
He also gave credit to Kent for asking the round table to address questions about the risks and opportunities surrounding taking a “life cycle approach” to economic and environmental policies.
The government announced in its last budget that it is shutting down the round table, that has a staff of about 30 people and receives $5 million in annual federal funding, because Kent explained it could get some research and policy advice from the Internet and other non-government sources of information.
McLaughlin explained that the findings from the latest report emerged because the panel convened several meetings with affected stakeholders and business executives who were openly discussing the issue for the first time and expressing some growing concerns about the issue.
“It surprised us that there was that much concern,” McLaughlin said in an interview. “It was under the table a bit. It hadn’t been brought up because nobody asked about it before.”
McLaughlin and Davies also said that the approach reflects consumer demand for greener products that a company must address in order to protect its reputation.
By failing to adopt life cycle approaches in Canada, the report suggested that companies, such as Canadian oilsands producers, would be at risk from emerging foreign policies in the United States and Europe to lower greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.
It said the risks also plague other sectors such as aeropace, electronics, and building and construction.
“Canada risks serious harm to its national economic interests by not proactively developing frameworks nor engaging in initiatives related to Life Cycle Approaches domestically and globally,” said the report.
It also warned that forcing companies to comply with regulations requiring a life cycle approach to their operations in a short time frame would require “larger and more immediate investments” to either respond or “risk losing market share.”
“This risk is real and Canada must act now to maintain its competitiveness,” said the report.
Canadian economy is facing
OTTAWA-Canadian businesses are facing “significant economic repercussions” that will affect the country’s growth and international competitiveness because of inadequate policies to ensure environmental stewardship through the lifespan of products, says a new report released Wednesday by a doomed federal advisory panel.
The research by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy was requested last year by Environment Minister Peter Kent and included multiple consultations with officials from government, businesses and academics to research the emerging issues.
The report, entitled Canada’s Opportunity: Adopting Life Cycle Approaches for Sustainable Development, noted that foreign governments have already started to introduce regulations that set minimum environmental standards on products such as requiring fuels to have a cleaner environmental footprint, restricting the trade and market access of Canadian companies.
“The risk that Canadian companies are not prepared for existing and future foreign government regulations that require Life Cycle Approaches has significant economic repercussions,” said the report, led by policy adviser Hilary Davies from the round table.
“Businesses can lose part or all of their access to export markets, face fines or penalties for not complying with the regulations, or suffer damage to brand recognition.”
David McLaughlin, the president and CEO of the 24-year-old advisory panel, noted that some companies and brands, such as Canadian Tire, have already introduced new policies to consider the life cycle costs of products and packaging that have actually allowed it to avoid some energy consumption and save about $6 million annually.
He also gave credit to Kent for asking the round table to address questions about the risks and opportunities surrounding taking a “life cycle approach” to economic and environmental policies.
The government announced in its last budget that it is shutting down the round table, that has a staff of about 30 people and receives $5 million in annual federal funding, because Kent explained it could get some research and policy advice from the Internet and other non-government sources of information.
McLaughlin explained that the findings from the latest report emerged because the panel convened several meetings with affected stakeholders and business executives who were openly discussing the issue for the first time and expressing some growing concerns about the issue.
“It surprised us that there was that much concern,” McLaughlin said in an interview. “It was under the table a bit. It hadn’t been brought up because nobody asked about it before.”
McLaughlin and Davies also said that the approach reflects consumer demand for greener products that a company must address in order to protect its reputation.
By failing to adopt life cycle approaches in Canada, the report suggested that companies, such as Canadian oilsands producers, would be at risk from emerging foreign policies in the United States and Europe to lower greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.
It said the risks also plague other sectors such as aeropace, electronics, and building and construction.
“Canada risks serious harm to its national economic interests by not proactively developing frameworks nor engaging in initiatives related to Life Cycle Approaches domestically and globally,” said the report.
It also warned that forcing companies to comply with regulations requiring a life cycle approach to their operations in a short time frame would require “larger and more immediate investments” to either respond or “risk losing market share.”
“This risk is real and Canada must act now to maintain its competitiveness,” said the report.
Canadian economy is facing
If dutch disease is actually what's taking place.
That translates over into the trades as well. I'm busy.
Yep. A strong economy, parred with the weakened dollar of our largest trading partner.
Our dollar is trading higher because our economy is healthier than the US. If they weren't still reeling from the downturn, this conversation wouldn't be taking place.
Plausible, but how do you equate for the past success of the same oil sector, while our dollar was trading lower against the the greenback?
As apposed to how our dollar is simply trading higher, because of the weakened US dollar.
You spelled ratepayers wrong.
You don't know? You would guess?
Great economic strategy you have there.
Speaking of artificial. Throttling production, has historically caused price increases. Always has, always will.
LOL, as good a dodge as ever.
You could have at least attempted to address the points in my post.
Holy crap!!! Finally you admit that.
That settles it. No dutch disease. And you past posts claiming it was all the oil sands were as I said, BS.
See, conceding to fact doesn't kill you.
Ya, you made that Mhz like broad paint roller type comment already.
While analysts have pointed to the lowered greenback. Even your new buddy, whom you have sycophantically followed around repping, now admits it's because our largest trading partner has a lower dollar, due to the economic shortfall.
Why are you and your der leader right, while manufacturing sector analysts and Stats Canada making a case for how you and he are wrong?
Right now, the #1 reason for manufacturing decline is lack of competitiveness.
The dutch disease exists 'mildly' because production only began ramping up in 2006. When we install pipelines, that risk will be much greater, unless we can actually enforce cleanup legislation.
The dutch disease exists 'mildly' because production only began ramping up in 2006. When we install pipelines, that risk will be much greater, unless we can actually enforce cleanup legislation.
I accept your apology.
Given you already admitted you don't know much, and are guessing, that guess lacks credibility.
That would fall under his "I don't know" and "I guess" category.
But it's OK, his posts are Der Leader approved.
Ummm...
Which is why it falls into his "I don't know" and "I guess" category.
Yes, I know $7.7 billion from contaminated sites and $900 million in spills from Enbridge alone don't exist to you.