babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Will he be running in my constituency? If not, then he's irrelevant to me.
Umm... "divisive"? What political issue isn't divisive?
I agree that we are subsidizing the banks. But Dobbin's article on why we have a housing bubble is mostly hyperbole. It's heavily based on a letter that investment banker David Lepoidevin sends to clients and prospective clients, hoping to drum up business.
I also don't think the term 'bailout' is correct in terms of what happened with the banks. The CMHC is buying insured mortgages. In other words, these are mortgages where we are already on the hook for defaults. It was mostly a shell game to make the bank's balance sheets look better so they could keep borrowing and lending.
That's political-speak for "It isn't my priority".
So nice to see this thread return to the original topic :-)
To understand Mike, you have to understand that he was put in place by David Scrymgeor, former federal PC candidate, National Director of the federal PC party, and now GPO CFO.
My own opinion is that David is concentrating on turning the GPO into a "professional" political party, not necessarily a "conservative" party.
Part of professionalism is filing off the rough edges of your platform. And making sure your leader is also easily-digestible.
We already have enough "professional" parties with "easily-digestible" leaders.
My attraction to the Green Parties is because they take "ethical stands" on "difficult issues" and they seem to have "integrity".
I could not have said it better myself.
Lol. I don't know much about the GPO, but I wasn't impressed with this blog post: Ontario NDP chooses a new Leader, particularly this passage:
So their plan is to ignore social and economic reality, yet fix the environment?
The NDP simply realizes that a US Democrat bill for buy American in that country's stimulus plan coupled with Stephen Harper's buy American plan to uphold FTA-NAFTA, and in addition to the Ontario Liberals' plan to do absolutely nothing while spending millions on consultants every day is not a good stimulus plan for Canadian workers. Canada's largest provincial economy has bled tens of thousands of good paying union jobs since McGuinty pledged to stop the bleeding. We need new blood in both Ottawa and Toronto. Canadian voters are not falling for the lazy-faire attitude in Canada's political halls of powerlessness, and the polls indicate as much.
quote: "So their plan is to ignore social and economic reality, yet fix the environment?"
AND they are going to keep the market strong and free for all their worshipful retired and soon to be retired who enjoy nature in Florida. " Not necessarily a 'conservative' party", but reflective of the values of all the former Conservative figures now declaring themselves green.
quote: "My own opinion is that David is concentrating on turning the GPO into a "professional" political party, not necessarily a "conservative" party. " Like Jim Harris, Conservative, before him, who also understood "finances".
I think your statement neatly summarizes the perspective divide between the Green Party and the others. The way that senior governments have operated in Canada has, at best, paid lip service to the environment. In particular, economic growth has always been top priority - even for NDP governments (IMV). Of the advances in social policy since WWII, those that were adopted most readily were those that advanced the economy. Examples are the feminist revolution which effectively doubled the potential labour force and racial tolerance which facilitated our raiding of underdeveloped countries of some of their most highly educated people. The environment has always come last and has been treated as a luxury. We can save the spotted owls but only after everything else is looked after. In fact, I would go so far as to say that environmental legislation has been primarily focused on creating parks (which are thereafter treated as economic output generators via tourism) and reacting to environmental problems that have been ignored for so long they are starting to have noticeable negative economic consequences.
The Green perspective (at least as I understand it) is that without a healthy environment, there is no economic or social reality. Our environment is the ultimate reality. For generations, the messaging, explicit or implicit, from our political leaders has been something like "Of course we think the environment is important but first we need to ensure we have a strong economy. Then we can afford to fix the environment". From a green perspective (and, I believe from a Green perspective), this is upside-down, inside-out thinking.
So when Greens talk about the "new reality", I think that's what they're trying to say.
disclaimer: I'm not now nor have I ever been a member of the Green Party. Or any party. Although I have been to parties. And I did inhale.
"So when Greens talk about the "new reality", I think that's what they're trying to say."
The "new reality" also means understanding that the market makes it impossible to control growth of production and consumption.
"Our environment is the ultimate reality" ranks up there with all the other meaningless phrases that have been put out there for the congregation to savour. Like meaning of life statements that rise with the smoke of the fresh toke.
I follow, but one problem I'm having with the GPC is to try to get a better sense of where they are on economic justice issues. For example, the CCPA has shown how inequality has increased significantly over the last few decades. I've come to realise we need to reduce inequality for the health of our society, not to mention our democracy. I'm not sure that the Green Party appreciates the extent to which our current plight can be attributed to neoliberal policies. I'm skeptical that tinkering with neoliberalism is going to do the job on the environment, and we don't have time to experiment. Those are important words and issues that the former GPO President dismissed with a "we've heard it all before".
I agree that GP has a hard time expressing economic justice policy.
But every Green understands that when the environment goes bad, poor people hear about it first. Usually in distant lands..
Then you have lost me too? While it may be political wise to strategically paint this picture. It is false but popular myth. There is little doubt that the Federal CPC and LPC hand out corporate welfare with no strings attached.
The NDP has positioned themselves properly on these issues. Automotive emissions reductions actually creates jobs and if the money is invested in Canada it creates the jobs HERE. My vehicle has 3 catalytic converters on it and is made in Ontario.
Its a different approach from the NDP. The Green Party social and economic realiy is a vision shared by Neo Liberal economic policies. That is the policies currently supported by the CPC and the LPC.
From Fidel's link:
Mind-bogglingly stupid, or breathtakingly dishonest?
The only parts of the NDP platform that resemble the Green's platform pre-existed the GPO by at least a decade. Do Green Party stalwarts even believe this nonsense?
Quite right and to the heart of the matter, milord. A carbon tax would have an immediate, revolutionary affect on the standard economic growth model, with concomitant political effects to the status quo. It's a real game changer that, not only addresses the imperative of global warming at its source, it also creates a new paradigm of power. Cap and trade looks to be nothing more than another derivative ponzi scheme that hopes to capitalize on the current crisis by straddling the old order, while attempting to harness the new regime. By kicking the can further down the road, cap and trade will no doubt end in both failure and catastrophe, should worst-case senarios about climate change prove accurate. To this point, all argument is existential. Vote Green!
The immediately above series of quotations aptly mixes common myths lefties have about carbon pricing possibilities, and the real life politics rather than pipe dream wishes that come with them.
[1] All carbon pricing methods are based in 'the market system'. That should be: 'Duh'. So it is delusional this common idea among NDP partisans that the carbon tax is inherently more 'capitalistic' than cap and trade.
But the fact that is a delusion does not make the opposite true.
[2] There is nothing the least bit revolutionary about the carbon tax in itself. Carbon tax without prior aggressive green spending initiatives is indeed nothing more than a misplaced faith in what market price mechanisms will achieve essentially of their own accord. And whatever the carbon tax fits into in some overall package in their minds, Canadian lefties are inclined to support and preach the virtues of carbon tax political agendas that actually exist. And do so willfully oblivious or waving away that said actual carbon tax agendas come joined at the hip with tax cuts that make aggresive green spending initiatives fiscally impossible- the same green spending initiatives that are required to make a carbon tax something more than faith in what market pricing will do.
As honest as all the other claims and arguments put forward by the Greens - and as I've noted throughout this thread, honesty isn't the party's primary approach. But the final flourish here, with its attempt to silence argument, is a new and rather offensive tactic. So let me point out: to this point, all autoworker's argument is illogic couched in voluminous vocabulary.
Honestly!
Mike Schreiner, the new leader of the Green Party of Ontario will be on Global at 6:60 tonight:
http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/ontario/features/focus_ontario/index.html
Well I'm a lefty and NDP partisan, and I realize that with carbon taxes the result is certainty about prices but uncertainty about emission reductions. With cap and trade, it's the inverse. Either method can be tweaked so as it doesn't do what it's supposed to. Both can be made ineffective with loopholes, kick-back and graft. Political reality says this is likely to happen with either or. Liberals and Tories sold Canada's environment to Exxon-Imperial and the fossil fuel industry interests beginning with St Laurent government of the 1950's and continuing with FTA-NAFTA, deep integration and SPP.
What we need is a made in Canada national energy policy drafted by strong central government. But that would be the antithesis of neoliberal doctrinaire, the second-hand economic philosophy our bought-off political stooges have adhered to for the last quarter century or so.
What the world needs from Canada is for Ottawa and provinces to help curb corporate America of its voracious appetite for cheap Canadian fossil fuels.
We can't do that when national energy policy is dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America. And it's difficult to maintain any control over these supranational energy companies operating in Canada when the banks we bail out continue to finance upwards of two-thirds of the 12,000 or so foreign takeovers of Canadian corporations and valuable crown assets in this country since 1985, and using Canadians' savings to do it, too.
Just keepin' it real on babble, Ken.
KenS: While you're correct in pointing out that carbon taxes are offset by tax cuts elsewhere, my understanding of such 'tax shifting' is that the result is revenue neutral, and would not affect mandated program spending in areas such as health care, for example. You're also right, to some extent, about a reliance on pricing mechanisms to produce sustainability. However, that in itself would not preclude "green spending initiatives" elsewhere-- they simply may not be as "aggressive" as you might prefer. But that is an ongoing debate. Personally, I think the crux of the problem lies with 'monopoly capitalism', whereby, corporate entities that are 'too big to fail' are conduits of macro policy. While government should remain the biggest player in the game, a larger role isn't necessarily better.
As for carbon taxes not being revolutionary, in and of themselves, I think you underestimate what affect European gasoline and diesel prices would have in North America. Imagine if U.S. gas prices were 5 or 6 dollars per gallon! Not to mention having to pay the true cost of electicity, as coal-fired generation is phased out. Other than protecting the most vulnerable from the inevitable restructuring of the economy, I don't know what else government can do to re-establish some semblance of eqilibrium. It will never be a perfect world.
Its not a question of what you or I prefer, nor of "not as agressive as ideal".
The record everyway is that price increases alone have to go up a huge amount before they begin to make appreciable impacts on consumption. Negligible effects will not do for reducing GHG emissions. Even in Europe with their subtantially higher fuel taxes, Europeans did the same thing as North Americans: the bulk of technological improvement in fuel efficiency was lost to consumers buying more horsepower and heavier vehicles.
Where carbon taxes worked in Europe they were in tandem with aggressive and broad green spending initiatives. The little experience we have here with doing both indicates the same. And certainly we have tons of evidence fuel price increases alone do virtually nothing. People point to the drops in driving with the big increases of 2007-8. That was a modest drop, on the heels of zero change while the price more than doubled in the previous few years. Nor did people move to smaller vehicles. And we have yet to have any drop in space heating, even with it much easier to make incremental improvements. People and businesses large and small simply absorb paying more all too easily.
We get the carbon pricing from 'the market' anyway [its back after the brief respite]- at much higher levels than in the carbon tax plans. What we lack is the aggressive green initiatives. Having them at a sufficient level is a prerequisite to the carbon taxes having an effect is empty posturing- we've seen lots of that movie from the Liberals. That movie is the Liberals.
Your understand of "tax shifting" is correct, as far as it goes. It should not effect levels of spending on exitising programs. But the level of green intitiative spending required is impossible without new revenues. The obvious source of those is the new carbon taxes. Oh, but those were promised back to consumers. Not just low income, everyone. All the revenues. [Leaving aside the salt in the wound that in the Dion plan 1/3 of the carbon tax revenues were going to corporate tax relief, and that the complete coverage of price increase compensation for even lowest income groups was was "incomplete". Fine print.]
So there is no new revenues for green spending from carbon taxes. It would only take a very modest income tax increase. But how do you do that when you've sold the carbon tax with compensating income tax cuts??
Who said anything about looking for 'great', let alone perfection? But making progress on overall GHG reduction is a minimum requirement. And I already addressed above what you and a lot of other people think is going to be got out of carbon price increase alone. No you don't think thats all that should happen. But you poltically support people who put forth plans that do just that.
KenS:
Thanks for your well-considered and respectful response (which is appreciated here). I share your concern about the shortcomings of tax shifting. It does beg certain questions about future revenues and expenditures, I think. It may also be part of what I meant about it not being a perfect world, although I don't recall making any sort of reference to 'great', or aspirations thereof.
As for your comment about Europeans opting for horsepower over fuel economy, when provided with greater fuel effeciency; I don't believe that's accurate, because European fuel prices, and tax policy, are just too prohibitive (high performance status symbols notwithstanding).
Your analysis about such tradeoffs is most applicable to North America, where the true costs of energy are not reflected in the price, and probably won't be for some time. That's why I think that the whole business of caps and carbon credits is a mug's game-- it would need to be rigged to keep the ball rolling. It's a knee-jerk reaction to the present crisis, and I'm very skeptical about the politics involved in implementing something meaningful and effevtive. There are just too many oxen to be gored.
Unfortunately, I'm right.
Europeans have smaller cars. They pay considerably more for fuel, and they have a mindset that takes the cost of fuel consumption more seriously. [Which is interesting, because I suspect that their much fewere miles driven means they pay less than we do total. And I know that even driving somewhere where the distances between places are higher than average for Europe- like Andalucia in Spain- I don't get the feeling I'm shelling as much out for fuel for same size vehicle as we drive around Eastern North America... let alone western distances.]
But for all that, Europeans did the same things as North Americans through the Nineties: opted for more horsepower and weight. In North America, only frugal or greenie people think of a Focus or Jetta wagon as a relatively large car. Where many or even the majority see those as "comfortable cars". But conceptually, they moved from the Deux CV to the Jetta or Focus. And ironically, one of the reason what we call small cars- like the Focus- are built with as high horsepower as they have, is because they are global platforms and Europeans, not just Germans, expect power to leap off the pedal.
They weren't born that way. Unlike us, they are only a little more than a generation removed from being 'prosperous'... but when it becames available to them, just like us they opted to take their fuel efficiency improvements in bigger and faster, rather than in the form of consuming less fuel.
You are not alone. Their is a lot about about fuel consumption efficiency and consumer choice that is highly counter to what the most people think is happening. And as said- the other biggies of energy consumption are even worse for how much price increases really effect behaviour.
For all the bitching- if its price alone, it takes a huge sledgehammer to get that fly to move.