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.
Carbon pricing again
August 3, 2008 - 10:20am
There's nothing progressive at all about relying solely on tax policy to effect social change. Even with a blissfully progressive tax regime, people with wealth are at an advantage and people without are left further behind.
What's truly progressive about the NDP's climate change strategy is that it talks more about investing in initiatives which will make it possible for all Canadians to emit fewer GHGs.
When you reduce carbon to just another commodity, you create a pay-and-pollute regime. People with money will continue to do all the harmful things - and have all the fun, by the way - and the rest of us will be stuck with nothing. The Walrus had an interesting article about the future of travel several weeks back which suggested only the upper crust will be able to afford to fly if trends persist. Is that the kind of Canada we want? Sounds more like an aristocracy to me.
The Liberal climate change plan (federally and in BC) is all stick, no carrot. That's not progressive. There should be a cost to polluting, sure. But a really progressive government gives people the ability to change their behaviour first and then imposes penalties if they don't.
I probably should have thought of this long ago.
But I belatedly come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to ignore Gordon on this particular topic as long as he is intent on listening only to that repetetive voice in his head.
eta: Because I've had it up to here with people talking about me in the third person in threads where I've posted. If you disagree with me, say so, and why. If you don't want to engage, then don't engage. Spare me this passive-aggressive bullshit.
[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
That's two posts so far, and you've said nothing about any subject other than me.
You're out of your depth. All I've seen from you is do-it-yourself theories and meta-arguments about people who disagree with you.
[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Where's the evidence then, Doc?
For the purposes of this thread, my point is that the NDP has no plan for providing financial compensation for low-income households who will be hit by the increase in prices generated by its policy.
But at the same time, you can't tell us why the Liberal carbon tax would work, or even why the Liberals would come good on an election promise to do something about the environment now given that they did nothing over twelve years leading up to a federal election in 2006.
In fact, SG has resorted to telling babblers non-truths about the NDP's cap and trade being identical to Stephen Harper's plan, even though Harper's cap and trade makes no mention of hard cap limits for CO2 emissions while the NDP does. By saying things like this, SG clearly admits to not having done his homework.
Another fucking bullshit post in which I'm referred to in the third person. Is this Stupid Passive-Aggressive Post Week on babble? Why didn't I get the memo?
I've made my claim. If you disagree, SAY WHY. If you think I've misrepresented the NDP's position, POINT ME TO A LINK THAT CONTRADICTS MY CLAIM.
[img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Poster calls the NDP "conservatives in a hurry" and says the Liberals - the party which for 13 years did something south of sweet fuck all about climate change, which for 13 years exacerbated the disparity between rich and poor in this country, and which has a donor list which could be pretty much swapped straight across for Steve Harper's donor list- is the progressive party. Poster then tells everyone else to prove him wrong.
Huh.
Well, let me be the first to say I don't give one plague-infested rat's ass about said poster's so-called comparative analysis of the NDP and Liberal outlines for climate change because: A) neither is really a fully-fleshed out plan and B) they rely on different variables so it's damn-near impossible to give a straight-line comparison.
I will restate, however, that any party that attempts to effect social change by tax policy alone can stake no claim on being progressive. Rather, they're trying to goad people into change while bending over backwards to protect the interests of their corporate friends. And any person who comes onto a mostly-leftish board and repeatedly champions that party as being the progressive one solely because of their tax policy-driven platforms needs to give his or her head a good firm shake.
When did the adjective "progressive" get morphed from "whatever reduces inequality and poverty" into "whatever the NDP says"?
You know what Mr Gordon. People have repeatedly provided you with data, analysis and a whole lot of other stuff that demonstrates you are talking out of your hat, or somewhere south of there. Your response to date has essentially been "I know you are but what am I". Despite repeated attempts to explain why I felt, as a now nonpartisan why I prefered the one over the other and how you were creating your own strawman, you consistently reply by repeating your incorrect assertions. I gave up engaging in your child-like games some time ago. Have fun talking to your hand though.
Why was astrology invented the gentleman asked.
It was to make economics seem like a science his companion replied.
You would think the global warming theory was without critism or opposition, but the media seeems to drown the opponents out
First of all there is NO credible evidence to suggest that the earth is warmimg due to the increase in "greenhouse gases" . Only recently has carbon dioxide been refered to as a "greenhouse gas" which suggests that by its title its the bogeyman. CO2 is just a GAS, not a greenhouse gas.
For anyone with even a reasonable amount of knowledge on the earths climate, to even suggest the main determinant of climate change is the amount of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere is lunacy.
Why peopel are so easliy mis-lead on subjects as complicated as climate is beyond me.
Do yourself a favour and RESEARCH the subject with an open mind, instead of be mis-lead by those that have an agenda or are easily influenced by the environmental fad du jour.
This fear-mongering by politicians like Al Gore is insane. To even suggest that CO2 will be responsible for raising sea levels to the point
that we are SCARED is irresponsible.
Human beings themselves are "greenhouse gas" machines themsleves, we exhale co2 with every breath and suck in oxygen, perhaps we should just kill off a few Billion to halt the melting of glaciers. The breathing of mamamls creates enormous amounts of Co2, and produces no oxygen, i suppose we ought to stop breathing?
I am Environmenatlly sensitive as anyone, probably more so, but MY focus is on REAL concerns, not the fantasies of politicians and mis-guided scientists who need to keep the grant money coming.
Until The vast mojority of people have clean air to breath and clean water to drink we ought to focus on sovling THAT problem. There is so much environmental issues that are Here and NOW problems. Scaring the crap out of people on far-fetched theories that do NOT hold up to scientific scrutiny are a waste of everones time and resources.
Ask any poor person in Asia or Africa whether they give a toss about half-baked global warming theories and they'll look at you as if you stepped off the Starship Enterprise. The majority of those poor individuals would prefer decent , clean water and protection from malaria or AIDS.
[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
And two economists in the same thread, too!
Gravity is just a theory too, but I don't suppose you'd want to jump off a tall building. You should post one of these so-called critiques and be shown how utterly flawed they are.
No, I think he should jump off a tall building because I think the theory of gravity is just a plot by socialists and homosexuals to keep real Americans from realizing personal flight.
Okay, I vote we start with the residents of Tuvalu, a small group of islands north of Fiji. But I think we'd better get to it fairly soon because in the long run they'll be the former residents of Tuvalu.
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Yer too much, FM
Give me a break do your research. Thats the problem with the Global Warming alarmists, they are far to quick to come to conclusions that suits their political purposes
The Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon disappear because we've put out too much carbon dioxide. There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from 1978, so it's 30 years. And again, if you look there, absolutely no trend, no rise.
So, from where do they get this rise in the Tuvalu Islands?
We know in the Tuvalu Islands that there was a Japanese pineapple industry which extracted too much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available from precipitation, rain. So, if you take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring seawater into the magazine, which is not nice. So they took out too much freshwater and in came salt water. And of course the local people were upset.
I have longtime friends in the Cayman islands who are but 5 feet above sea level and after living there 200 years they haven't noticed ANY rise in the sea levels, so wheres the beef???