Ol' JB Sings Again: They Picked Tom Mulcair

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I spent some time watchin' the big NDP leadership meetin' yesterday an' I got inspired to record up another catterwaulin' youtube video. I reckon some Dippers'll be kinda peeved on accounta they ain't especially known fer their sense o' humour an' I'm takin' a jab at their new boss man.

Were NDP MPs Listening to Ol' JimBobby?

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, a coupla days ago, I posted up a blog story on how I'd written to a buncha NDP MPs an' to Jack Layton, too, tellin' 'em they need to vote to keep the gun registry if they want a hope in hell of fixin' it. The comments section on the blog got pretty heated with the Dipper Leftdog sayin' my position showed I'd been hoodwinked by the GrittyBoys. Well, I was watchin' Mansbridge last night and I seen the NDP leader come out and say the selfsame thing I said:

Layton said. "I am very confident that the votes that are needed to continue the registry so that it can be fixed will indeed be there, and I'm feeling very optimistic about what lies ahead as a result."

It ain't really that complicated. If you scrap it, you can't fix it. When I asked Leftdog several times how you could fix something if it was scrapped, he refused to answer. Jack Layton answered, though. What I'm really wonderin' about now is: does Leftdog think that Jack Layton was hoodwinked by the Liberals? After all, Jack's sayin' the exact same thing I said in my letter to the NDP MPs.

Dear NDP Member of Parliament,

Whooee! Well, friend an' foes, I just sent an email to a few NDP MPs via an online thingamajig that lets you send it automagically. The online tool has a pre-written letter that you can sign but you can change it or write yer own letter in the space provided. Here's what I sent.

Dear NDP Member of Parliament,

Once the gun registry is scrapped, it cannot be fixed. The Harper government will never resurrect the registry. If it is killed, it will not rise, zombie-like, to be tweaked by well-meaning MPs. The only way it can be fixed is if it still exists.

First, you must prevent it from being eliminated forever. Then and only then, can it be improved upon.

When you send an old car to the junkyard and they squash it into a 1 metre x 1 metre x 1 metre cube, it's a little too late to start talking about doing a tune-up.

If you want the registry dead and gone forever, then go ahead and vote to kill it. If, however, you want to improve it -- as Jack Layton says -- then you must allow it to survive long enough to be improved.

By the way, I am a rural dweller. Some rural Canadians are quite outspoken in favour of killing the gun registry. They speak loudly but I do not think they speak for the majority of rural people. We register our cars, our boats and even our dogs. Why would we not agree to registering our deadly weapons?

I signed it with my real name and postal code. I got a CPC MP so maybe them Dippers'll just toss my email in the scrap pile along with the gun registry but I figgered it was at least worth a try.

If I coulda sent a picture, this'd be the one:

Hey, Mr. Goodwrench, how about a tune-up?

JimBobby

MP Expenses Scandal: Grassroots Outrage or Media Invention

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, I like the discussions that take place over at Steve V's Far and Wide. They're mostly Grits but they tolerate my Green-tinged rants and the partisanship doesn't permeate the conversation as much as on some other blogs. The topic on everybody's tongue these days is the MP expenses issue. Steve figgers the dang media's blown it all out of proportion and he's got hisself boog on that idea today.

I disagree with Steve and I just spent a few minutes blatherin' on (and on) about it. I'm recyclin' that comment here.

We all gave the MSM proper shit for failing to seize upon the prorogation issue. Their excuse was that they didn't think the public was politically astute enough to grasp the nuances of parliamentary protocol. They were wrong and they ended up admitting as much.

You don't have to be too politically astute to understand expense account sleaze, though. The issue comes hot on the heels of the UK's MP expenses scandal with homegrown provincial counterparts in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The MSM doesn't have to wonder whether or not the public understands. We get it and they know it.

While I agree there are similarities between this issue and prorogation, there are major differences. Prorogation was all about ducking responsibility for the handing over of Afghan detainees to torture. I am one of those who have been on top of that issue for years but I know very well that it fails to strike a chord with many Canadians.

The A-G issue is all about money --- our money. Despite the fact that the amount pales in comparison to what we've squandered on an unwinnable and immoral war, it hits us close to home.

WRT the Facebook thing, there could be a couple of mitigating factors. First, the very fact that the MSM IS all over this issue makes it seem less important for individuals to get personally involved. This time around, the media is not ignoring the issue and perhaps would-be Facebook group members are sitting back and allowing the media to do its job and push for disclosure.

Secondly, the first and largest Facebook group is the creation of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, considered by many to be a right-wing lobby group. The anti-prorogation group was the creation of a non-partisan student and was truly a grassroots effort.

Perhaps partisanship is the biggest difference here. With prorogation, it was everyone against the ruling Conservatives. They only got 38% of the votes, after all. 62% voted against them and were not happy with the affront to democracy. There weren't too many card-carrying CPCers out on the streets on January 23. There were plenty of Liberals, Dippers and Greens.

In the expenses issue, highly partisan citizens -- card-carrying party members from all parties -- may be holding back. Ignatieff hasn't endorsed the protest. Neither has Layton. In fact, they are the ones we are protesting against, along with the Harper Conservatives. When the party faithful are being told that this isn't an issue by the party leaders and nearly every MP, party members are not too likely to join a Facebook group or take to the streets.

When the 4 parties finally struck a deal on the detainee documents, it was big news. The parties in this hitherto fractious parliament had been able to reach an agreement. The media was a bit surprised by the fact, as were many voters. Getting to the bottom of the torture allegations was secondary in the reportage. The all-party agreement on a divisive issue was the big story.

Jump ahead a couple weeks and there's parliamentary unanimity on another issue: MP expenses. Why shouldn't that be newsworthy? When the MPs solidarity is contrasted with the public's diametrically opposite solidarity, it's news.

Poll after poll after poll has found the MPs to be entirely out of step with public opinion. That's news and the media would be remiss in failing to report it. Remember, we faulted them severely for failing to pick up on the outrage around prorogation. Do they want to be accused of being out of touch yet again?

There is a big difference between journalists' expense accounts and MPs expense accounts. The MPs are spending our money. The MPs are our employees. The MPs are public servants. The MPs pledged accountability and transparency and we elected them and gave them our confidence. Abuse may be commonplace in every workplace but in this particular workplace, we are the employers. We have every right to see the books and we have every right to be outraged when MPs band together across party lines to hide them from us.

If we lose confidence in the media, we can quit buying newspapers. If we lose confidence in MPs of every party, we can live with it until the next election at which time we can choose between tweedle-crook and tweedle-crookeder.

Scandals are news. Scandal sell papers. So what? Would we rather bury our heads in the sand? There's a bigger scandal brewing regarding the detainees and I relish the moment that the media grabs it and runs with it. Crimes against expense accounts are scandalous, sure. War crimes and crimes against humanity are more scandalous and I won't fault the media for delving into such a scandal -- even if their motivation is to sell more papers.

Layton Adopts Green Party Policy

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, Jack Layton ain't been exactly sociable with the gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May. Now, it looks like that might be changin'. Today is Lizzie's birthday. I don't know if Jack sent her any birthday greetings or not but he sure as hell done Lizzie a favour by stealin' a plank from the Green Party policy book.

Greenies are happy to share our good green ideas and when other parties lift a policy, like Stephane Dion did with our tax-shifting policy, we're happy 'huggers. I reckon Happy Jack's makin' Lizzie happy on her birthday by adoptin' a GPC policy.

From the Globe, June 8, 2008:

Yesterday, in a speech in Ottawa, he (NDP Leader Jack Layton) called on the federal government to suspend any new permits for oil sands development projects until the cumulative social and environmental effects have been examined.

“No new approvals until we get it right,” he said.

From Vision Green, October 15, 2007:

Green Party MPs will:
...

• Address inter-provincial/territorial and international water-related concerns by demanding that government:
1. Restore ecosystem health to Canada’s coastline and inland watersheds by funding improvements to municipal wastewater treatment systems, with particular emphasis on ensuring shoreline communities and industries stop dumping untreated waste into rivers, lakes and oceans; and,
2. Ensure that binding water-sharing agreements among provincial, territorial and federal governments are created within the Mackenzie Basin (within 1 year). The agreements must reflect contemporary scientific knowledge and principles of social equity, efficiency and ecological integrity. Elements to include:
   1. Capping withdrawals from the Athabasca River based on assessment of in stream flow needs;
   2. Ensuring oil sands developers deal responsibly with polluted waters in storage ponds (largest man-made structures on Earth); and,
   3. Placing a moratorium on further oil sands development (i.e. increases in annual production).
      

From Green Party, May 2, 2008:

The Green Party of Canada is calling for a moratorium on the expansion of Tar Sands development and an elimination of government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

Back in December, Earth Mother Lizzie May posted up a boog story where she listed off 31 policies that were unique to the Green Party. When Dion and the Grits adopted our carbon tax shift, the list got a little shorter. Now that Layton and the Dippers have adopted our moratorium on tar sands expansion policy, another item can be scratched off Lizzie's List of Green Party Uniqueness.

Here's Lizzie's December 2007 list:

A carbon tax, an indispensable step in getting the prices right in energy choices and allowing reduced income and payroll taxes.


“Income-splitting” to reduce the tax burden on middle class couples.

A continuing role in Afghanistan but within a transformed U.N. mission, legalizing and regulating the poppy trade for medicinal use, and bringing in more Islamic nations into the peace-keeping, security efforts in Southern Afghanistan through the U.N.

An end to asbestos mining and export to developing countries. (truly outrageous that for all the talk about asbestos, only the Green Party is prepared to call for banning mining and export.)

The phase out of nuclear power and uranium mining.

The reform of the Divorce Act to make family law less of a battleground.

To launch a national dialogue toward a Guaranteed Livable Income.

The legalization of marijuana, to be controlled, regulated and taxed.

The six month notice to get out of NAFTA with immediate re-negotiation of key provisions.

Support for open source software and net neutrality.

National shift to GE-free, organic agriculture and regional food self-sufficiency.

A moratorium on new projects in the tar sands.

Creation of a federal Department of Tourism

Protect drinking water at its source (no other party will do this--the BC NDP jailed citizens for trying to protect drinking water).

Amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to enshrine the right of Canadians to an ecological heritage that includes breathable air and drinkable water.

Pass federal legislation to prohibit bulk water exports.

Establish a National Parks completion budget; protect at least half of Canada's Boreal Forest in a network of large interconnected protected areas as called for in the 2003 Boreal Forest Conservation Framework

Zero waste, including laws requiring lifetime stewardship of products

A cancer prevention strategy that includes a toxic-free Canada -- taxing toxics and pollution; ending the production and use of the most dangerous toxic chemicals by 2012.

Pan-Arctic waste management strategy.

Shift funding from mega-freeway projects like Pacific Gateway that encourage urban sprawl and use the funds instead for public transit.

Implement Genuine Progress Indicator (or Index of Well-being)

Enact "living will" legislation to give person the choice to die with dignity.

Explore establishing a new crown corporation to bulk purchase and dispense generic drugs - to bring down the costs of pharmacare.

Pass pay equity legislation; immediately implement full pay equity for women employed in the federal sector and develop tax incentives for companies to meet gender and pay equity.

Press professional societies to remove unnecessary barriers recognizing the professional credentials of immigrants.

Canada must support and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Revamp CIDA to focus on developing community-based green economies, poverty alleviation and programmes to combat and adapt to climate change.

Declare Canada a nuclear free zone.

Reform WTO, IMF and the World Bank, placing these under the authority of the UN General Assembly and shift the direction of international trade away from free trade to fair trade.

Scrap the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership)

Well, I guess we're down to only 29 policies that are unique to the Green Party. As we move closer an' closer to the next federal election, I wonder who's gonna be next to take a page outta Vision Green.

JimBobby

Do McGuinty and Charest Reject Carbon Tax?

Whooee! I was just over to Steve V's fine blog, Far and Wide, where he's talkin' about the new cap-and-trade deal between McGuinty and Charest. Steve's post is mostly about how PitBullBoy Baird is all hot under the collar and don't like the idea of the provinces workin' independently for the sake of the planet. I hear Dubya says the same things about Schwartzenegger.

An anonymous commenter characterized the deal as a rejection of carbon taxes. Here's what the nameless one said.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that you do not note that the two Liberal premiers of the two largest provinces where the Liberals need to maintain and acquire new seats have REJECTED Mr. Dion's carbon tax and favour the NDP cap and trade approach.

I agree that a realignment in QC may be in the works but I wouldn't be gleeful about it if I were a Liberal activist.

The Charest/Dion enviro message will reinforce the NDP narrative come election time.

8:06 AM, June 02, 2008

I think we can safely assume the anonymous commenter is an NDP backer.

REJECTED? I ain't so sure about that.

I don't see this as a rejection of a carbon tax. In many European and Scandinavian jurisdictions, carbon taxes and cap-and-trade work side-by-side to reduce GHG's.

McGuinty has said he prefers the cap-and-trade tactic but I can't recall any quotes where he's rejected or even REJECTED a carbon tax. Dion did reject a carbon tax not long ago. I'm sure we'll all be reminded by anonymous NDP commenters soon enough. Dion changed his mind and the carbon tax idea is getting quite good acceptance. McGuinty and Charest won't be afraid of embracing a winning idea; especially, one that they haven't actually rejected.

If I purchase a new sofa, that does not mean I REJECT chairs. It simply means that I am adding one component to my living room seating capacity.

The Green Party is calling for a multi-pronged approach with two of those prongs being a carbon tax and sector by sector cap-and-trade implementation. Most observers and experts seem to think each system has merit. Proponents of each argue as to which is faster to implement.

In an interview last week, Iggy broadly hinted that the Grits will include cap and trade in their tax shift proposal.

The only ones who are REJECTING actions known to be positive are the NDP and the Con's. The NDP's rejection of a carbon tax flies in the face of EU experience and Kyoto target-meeting results.

Only the Con's are rejecting cap-and-trade and rejecting a carbon tax. Their plan: wait until after the US election to see what their masters dictate. Stall, obfuscate, nit-pick, demonise, scare and promote the status quo.

It is a well known fact that the federal government is the most effective arm of government when it comes to applying and collecting taxes. Outside of Quebec, we use the federal government to collect provincial income tax as well as most taxes. Also, wrt the revenue neutral tax shift idea, the provinces don't collect enough income tax to make a revenue neutral carbon tax a well-funded environmental solution.

Besides, somebody has to do something. The provinces, like some US states, are realizing that the federal level i sluggish and ill-inclined to act to save ol' Mother Earth. BC has introduced a carbon tax. The Western provinces are working on an international carbon market with some western states. Ontario and Quebec are collaborating on a cap-and-trade system.

The Fed's are doing just about nothing and the NDP is insisting it has the one and only solution.

JimBobby
(Note: This post is an edited version of a comment I posted at Far and Wide.)

Carbon Tax or Cap-and-Trade or Both?

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, everybody's talkin' about Stephane Dion's tax shift plan. Right? No, they ain't. They're talkin' about Dion's carbon tax. Dumbass Dion shoulda come out and leaked the idea of a bigass change in the way the gummint collects taxes. First thing he shoulda leaked was a massive reduction in income and business taxes. Then, when everybody asks where the money's gonna come from, he comes clean an' tells 'em it's gonna come from a carbon tax.

But the absent-minded perfesser didn't think about politics and how the adoption of Green Party policy was gonna get spun an' twisted an' misrepresented. He shoulda thought o' that and the fact that he's bein' so dang clumsy in how this is comin'out might make some people question his political acumen.

Now everybody's talkin' carbon tax and the Con's an' Dippers is goin' all out with the attacks on carbon taxes. Nobody, so far that I seen, has gone on the attack against tax-shifting.

The Con's is playin' up the fact that Dion went flippety-flop on carbon taxin'. They're usin' a lotta scare tactics an' tellin' everybody that the carbon tax is gonna mean poor, old seniors are gonna freeze in the dark, starvin' on account they can't afford gas fer the chugmobile. I reckon they never heard-tell of rebate programs to create a safety net for the weakest or least financially secure in society. Social safety net stuff ain't something the Con's is familiar with -- except when it comes to dismantlin'.

The Dippers is at least talkin' an alternative to carbon taxes. They're sayin' we gotta tax the crap out the big polluter corporations and create a cap-and-trade system to reduce GHG's. Now, taxin' the crap out polluters ain't a bad idea. The carbon tax, as I understand it, is designed to do exactly that. Yeah, it's also gonna tax Joe SUV Driver and Ma & Pa TurnUpTheThermostat. If they're hurtin' they can apply for a rebate. Almost every single one of us can reduce our CO2 output. That means we can all reduce our taxes, if we have a carbon tax.

The Dippers say they don't want a revenue neutral tax shift. Instead they want to increase taxes. Now, who doesn't think increased corporate taxes are gonna trickle down and make increased prices? In a revenue-neutral scheme, there's a corresponding reduction to help the conscientious consumer offset the increase in fuel costs. In a non revenue neutral set-up, like the NDP proposes, costs are passed on to the consumer without any corresponding reduction in taxes.

The Dip's also say they want a marketplace solution. The marketplace has been such a successful vehicle for social change, after all. The marketplace created the dotcom boom and bust bubble that saw thousands of Canadians lose millions on Nortel and other tech stocks. The marketplace was instrumental in creating the US housing boom bust bubble that has thousands of working class Merkins gettin' foreclosed on. The marketplace is dictating the price of oil and we all know how that's helpin' regular folks. The marketplace has pushed the price of basic food stocks so high that 25,000 people are starvin' to death each and every day.

Here's a bit from a Wired article on cap-and-trade and carbon offsets:

Nationally managed emissions-trading schemes could do a better job than Kyoto's we-are-the-world approach by adding legal enforcement and serious oversight. But many economists favor a simpler way: a tax on fossil fuels. A carbon tax would eliminate three classes of parasites that have evolved to fill niches created by the global climate protocol: cynical marketers intent on greenwashing, blinkered bureaucrats shoveling indulgences to powerful incumbents, and deal-happy Wall Streeters looking for a shiny new billion-dollar trading toy. Back to the drawing board, please.

While I was diggin' around this mornin' for info about carbon taxes, I come across a year-old Washington Post article that I found interesting.

Tax on Carbon Emissions Gains Support
Industry and Experts Promote It as Alternative to Help Curb Greenhouse Gases

By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 1, 2007; A05

As lawmakers on Capitol Hill push for a cap-and-trade system to rein in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, an unlikely alternative has emerged from an ideologically diverse group of economists and industry leaders: a carbon tax.

Most legislators view advocating any tax increase as tantamount to political suicide. But a coalition of academics and polluters now argues that a simple tax on each ton of emissions would offer a more efficient and less bureaucratic way of curbing carbon dioxide buildup, which scientists have linked to climate change.

"We want to do the least damage to the growth of GDP," said Michael Canes, a private consultant and former chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, who led a Capitol Hill briefing on the subject in late February sponsored by the conservative George C. Marshall Institute. Between a cap system and a carbon tax, "a carbon tax will be the much more cost-effective way to go," he said, though he added that there are other ways to reduce emissions.

Robert J. Shapiro, a private consultant who was a Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration, agrees. A cap-and-trade system -- involving plant-by plant-measurements -- would be difficult to administer, he said, and would provide "incentives for cheating and evasion." And the revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce the deficit or finance offsetting cuts in payroll taxes or the alternative minimum tax.

A carbon tax offers certainty about the price of polluting, which appeals to many economists and businesses. William A. Pizer, a senior fellow at the centrist think tank Resources for the Future and a former senior economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that the benefit-to-cost ratio of a tax-based system would be five times that of a cap-and-trade system.

"You're going to pay one way or another, whether it's a tax or a permit program," Pizer said, adding that while a cap would provide more certainty on how much emissions would be cut, "the consequences of being uncertain about emissions over any short period of time just aren't that serious."

Under a cap-and-trade system, the government would set an overall limit on emissions and allocate permits to emitters. If one plant reduces its emissions more quickly than another, it can sell its credits to the other emitter. A carbon tax would simply increase the cost of emitting each ton of carbon, which could then be passed on to consumers.

While Democrats have vowed to push through some sort of carbon dioxide control in this Congress, Bush has consistently opposed mandatory limits, so it remains unclear whether the United States will adopt any system before the next election.

Moreover, the fact that many economists back the tax approach is no guarantee that it will prevail over the five cap-and-trade plans already proposed in the Senate.

The complexity of the cap-and-trade system is part of its virtue for some politicians, since it may mask the system's impact on prices. Such a system also appeals to conservative lawmakers who like the idea of letting the market determine the price of carbon, while keeping revenue out of the hands of government. Some economists say it would channel capital to the most economically worthwhile projects first.

Environmentalists are split on a carbon tax. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, which is handing out baseball caps emblazoned with the slogan "Just Cap It" on Capitol Hill, called such a tax "an interesting distraction."

"It doesn't give us the guarantee the emissions will go down," he said.

But Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, said: "It will be more effective if people know that in year 'X' they will pay this much. Companies are highly motivated by costs." Moreover, he worries that rationing carbon allowances based on historical emissions would reward companies that spew out the most greenhouse gases now and did the least to limit them in the past.

Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's program on global warming, said the nation may need to adopt a carbon tax in several years but "we're not there yet."

Some industries that have historically opposed carbon limits embrace the idea of a tax because their sectors would not be singled out for regulation. "A poorly constructed cap-and-trade system can be as punitive as a regressive tax," said Scott Segal, an electric utilities lobbyist.

Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told a National Press Club audience in February that his industry prefers that lawmakers explore a range of policy options before imposing a cap.

"A cap-and-trade system isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all," he said. "A carbon tax, everything, should be on the table from the beginning."

Few lawmakers, Democrat or Republican, have the stomach for a carbon tax, however. Some are still smarting from a vote in the early 1990s when President Bill Clinton persuaded the House to adopt a BTU tax -- a tax on the heat content of fuels -- only to abandon the effort in the Senate.

Democrats such as House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II (W.Va.) say they have no desire to revisit the issue. "I'm not an advocate of a carbon tax," Rahall said. "That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that."

Some analysts said former vice president Al Gore's endorsement of both alternatives in testimony before Congress last week was so politically unpalatable that it was a sign that he is not seriously thinking of running for president.

Only one House Democrat, Rep. Pete Stark (Calif.), has drafted a carbon tax proposal. Stark, who first proposed such a tax 16 years ago as a way to ease the nation's energy crunch, plans to introduce a bill in April that would levy a tax of $25 per ton of carbon released for five years.

"It's more efficient, more equitable, and it's less subject to gaming, I might add," Stark said, estimating that it would raise the cost of gasoline by 10 cents a gallon.

As Congress debates how to regulate greenhouse gases, however, several European officials have said it would be a mistake to choose anything but a market-based trading system that could be linked to the emerging carbon market in Europe.

"Political leaders in the United States need to make a decision, and make it quickly, whether they want to be left behind in a market that is going to evolve, or whether they want to get involved quickly," said Stephen Byers, a member of Britain's Parliament who helped establish the European Union's trading system. "Wall Street could become the world center of carbon trading."

And Stavros Dimas, the E.U. environment commissioner, speaking at a recent lunch hosted by the D.C.-based European Institute, called it ironic that the United States would question the cap-and-trade system, because U.S. negotiators essentially forced Europe to agree to such a system in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in 1997.

"There was suspicion about market-based instruments," Dimas said. "In a way you did us a favor, because now we also are familiar with these market-based activities. It's functioning very well, actually."

"If we would go together into a world tax regime, that would be preferable," Jos Delbeke, the top E.U. official on climate change, said after a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing Monday. "But practically speaking, it is not a likely way to go. Emissions trading is a very solid second best."

Now, as suspect as I am about marketplace solutions, I ain't completely unsold on cap-and-trade. I think that it could be a valuable addition to a carbon tax policy. I don't think it's an entirely either/or proposition and there's some consensus that both systems have value, even if each claims to have better value.

If the NDP wants to help ol' Mother Earth, they'll join forces with the Libs and Greens on the tax-shiftin' carbon tax. If they make their support conditional on the establishment of a cap-and-trade system, I think the Greens and Grits'll be willing to play ball.

JimBobby

Hey Dippers, Lay Off the Greenies

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I'm sure I ain't the only booger who's noticed how the Dippers is gettin' desperate an' they're tossin' whatever mud they can find at the ones who they're worried about most -- Lizzie May an' her band o' treehuggin' Greenies. I ain't a hunnert percent sure that it's the Greens who's takin' votes away from the Dips. From what I seen in the 'pinion pools, the Greens is takin' from the Grits. The Dips ain't movin' backwards as fast as the Grits but the Greens is sure as hell surgin' ahead an' that's got Jack's team in attack mode.

One o' the worst things the Dips throw at the Greens is that the GPC is "fiscally conservative". Uh huh. Well, most Canajuns is also fiscally conservative. The Martinette Grit fiscal policies is at least as fiscally conservative as the Conservatives an' over 60% of Canajuns vote fer the Grits an' Cons an' when they do, they're votin' fer fis-cons. Sayin' that Greens is fis-cons is only pointin' out that GPC fiscal policy is in line with mainstream Canajun thinkin'.

To add weight to the intended insult, Dippers is always pointin' out that former GPC leader Jim Harris was, at one time, a Progressive Conservative. True enough. There are a lot of former PC's who went one way or another when Harpoon knocked the P outta PC. Harris didn't wait that long. He left the PC's an' went Green way back in 1985 when he was only 24 years old. Even if it was a giant black mark on his record to have been a Progressive Conservative as a younger man, he's been Green fer the past 22 years.

I seen one boog commenter tryin' t' say Harris was "pres" of the PC's.

If, as that booger sed, he was “pres” of the PC’s, he would have been the youngest pres of any political party I know of. His election to such a high office would have been big news. His subsequent defection would have been bigger news. I can't remember any bigass news like that from back in 85 an' I can find no evidence to backup the claim that he was “pres” of the PC’s.

Another way the Dips are tryin' t' discredit the Greens is by pointin' out that Lizzie May worked for Mulroney. That’s true enough. She did work as a lawyer advising Mulroney’s Environment Minister. It was her first job out of law school. She resigned in protest 20 years ago over Lyin' Brian Mulroney's government’s actions wrt a dam project.

Dippers ain't happy that Lizzie May sez unions need t' take some blame fer Canada's pisspoor showin' on climate change. Too bad. It's true, sez I.

I realize it’s a sacrilege fer Dippers to criticize organized labour so they can't ever admit that unions are at least partly to blame for lack of action on climate change. The enormous power of the CAW in Ontario has kept it’s workers on the assembly lines turning out Lincoln Navigators and spewing pollution into the air. NDP provincial regimes in Sasky and BC are on record with some of the worst environmental actions in recent years and the reason they took those anti-environmental actions was to pander to their union worker base.

Powerful sectors of society bear responsibility for the environmental mess we find ourselves in. Bizness, industry, government and organized labour. The unions have worked hard for their members. That’s their job. They have done so often at the expense of good green management. The environment is not the unions’ prime concern and it has always taken a backseat to job, jobs, jobs.

Individuals also are to blame and nobody needs to look very far to find an individual who refuses to take personal responsibility. Same with unions. Same with politicians. Same with the bankers an’ big biz boys. Same with loyal party flagbearers.

The sooner the NDP stands up to the unions and puts the welfare and health of all Canajuns over the financial security of Nanticoke’s IBEW and Oshawa’s CAW, the sooner they’ll start gettin’ the support of voters again. To a lot of environmentally concerned Canajuns, the Dips look like a 20th century phenomenon gaspin’ fer breath in a polluted 21st century atmosphere.

I ain't any fan o' WalMarket. I figger WalMarket's procurement policies are drivin' Chinese industrial growth an' are a major contributor t' GHG emissions. I've written boog stories supportin' WalMarket workers' right t' organize. I never shop in WalMarket an' I probbly never will.

But...

WalMarket's the biggest bigass retailer in the whole world. They got enormous power. When they do somthin' good fer ol' Mother Earth, it counts. WalMarket's replacin' every incandescent light bulb in their stores an' warehouses with CFB's. They're mountin' a major ad campaign an' they're phasin' out sales of old incandescant bulbs. This green action'll have a bigass effect on GHG emissions. Big bizness can be an ally but the Dips can only see as far as their union-made blinders'll let 'em an' they will never accept capitalism as a force that can be put to good use.

If the CAW ever goes on strike until the Big Three car makers replace all their incandescant lightbulbs, I'll eat a bug on YouTube.

Bizness, big an' small, is what creates jobs an' gets pay cheques out there so's Canajun workin' folks can enjoy the best standard o' livin' most anywhere. Greens are realty-based an' realize we can't save the planet without the support an' co-operation o' bizness. We need bizness an' we can't keep lookin' at bizness like it's the enemy.

Market mechanisms like emissions an' carbon tradin' are essential tools in GHG reduction. Biznesses an' unions need t' work together on solutions to industrial pollution. The NDP needs t' quit with it's out-dated, blinkered views if it don't wanna keep goin' downhill in the 'pinion polls an' at the ballot box. The NDP looks more like yesterday's party than the forward thinkers they looked like in the 60's.

JimBobby