Jump to navigation
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/in_cahoots.shtml?x=73125]This is an interesting proposal[/url] that balances "environmental" with "justice".
What do the rest of you think?
1. Rein in the global speculators2. Maintain low interest rates3. Tax surplus oil company profits4. Redirect surplus oil company profits to protect low income households against energy poverty5. Give people real and affordable energy alternatives6. Re-regulate oil and gas exports and increase domestic supply7. Focus climate change policies on the large industrial emitters
There are lots of details for each of the seven proposals.
P.S. I think they could have used a much better example than this one to illustrate the impact that high energy prices will have on working class or low income people.
Ordinary working families who mainly live from paycheck to paycheck will inevitably react to higher gas prices and utility bills by cutting into other areas of spending. The travel and hospitality industry already looks like it may be in big trouble this Summer.
The travel and hospitality industry are big culprits when it comes to environmental impact. I personally would have no problem with people cutting into that particular area of spending. What I worry about is people having to cut into their food and shelter budget, not their environmentally destructive airplane and hotel room vacation budget.
I like the proposal. I agree that food and shelter costs are far more detrimental to the working poor. That's why I reject a flat tax approach. Maybe mentioning tourism is an attempt to get municipal support?
On a related matter, [i]Cross Country Check-up[/i] was about the carbon tax versus carbon caps/trading. There was a Simon Fraser professor whose name I didn't catch (wrote a book called [i]Hot Air[/i]) as a guest and it annoyed me to no end that he kept implying that the NDP and Conservatives' approach was the same.
That's nice, and particularly the bit about keeping interest rates low. Only problem is businesses like to raise prices and workers like to ask for a raise so you get inflation. These are what historians call simple answers. They have appeal but nothing to do with the how things work.
The title of the article is: "What Can We Do About High Energy Prices? Labour's Action Plan"
I thought what was more revealing was what was missing.
The action plan is supposed to be tackling high energy prices, but it doesn't mention anything about the privatization of the energy sector, breaking up the monopolization of the industry, producing public power, pulling out of nafta, monopoly price fixing, or price controls.
It is focused almost exclusively on individual consumption, where as the manufacturing sector is also being hit hard by high energy prices.
Several of the points aren't actually about reducing energy prices at all.
2. Maintain low interest rates-Reducing interest rates, although a good idea, will increase the price of energy as demand increases.
3. Tax surplus oil company profits-Good idea. Unrelated to reducing energy prices.
4. Redirect surplus oil company profits to protect low income households against energy poverty- Not a bad idea. This compensates people for rising energy prices, but doesn't reduce energy prices.
5. Give people real and affordable energy alternatives-This point is actually about conservation and efficiency.
7. Focus climate change policies on the large industrial emitters-This point is about emission reduction rather than energy prices.