That's Why She's the Gal I Adore. Earth Mother Lizzie May, that is.

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I gotta tell you I was glued to the dang TV set last night from 9 until 11. Well, I was mostly glued except fer one time when I started noddin' off an' Ma laughed an' roused me an' I seen it was Dion on the TV mumblin' some kinda sleep inducin' FranglaMerkan lingo. After that, I needed a little fresh air so I let ol' Spot out in the backyard and breathed in some. I managed to stay a alert an' bushy-tailed fer the rest of the debate.

I met Lizzie in person a coupla times an' I seen her talk in person a few times an' a few more times on the YouTube. I knew dang well she was gonna do good an' she did. I figger Lizzie Gal showed 'em she's right up there in the big leagues an' deservedly so. Knowledgeable and quick, our gal Lizzie. An' I see in the polls lotsa folks changed their opinion fer the better an' the Greens is up a point overall.

I hear-tell some is sayin' Lizzie was buttin' in too much but I didn't hear it that way. There was a few times when there was three or four voices all yammerin' at once and them times I was listenin' hard fer a female voice an' Lizzie weren't talkin' overtop of them baritone bossmen. I did hear our Lizzie gal mutterin' some when she disputed a coupla big whoppers ol' King Steve was blatherin' about. Sheesh! Stevie tried to make out like the whole dang dumbass House o' Comments voted to fire Linda Keen. That was Harper misleadin'. Not a leader.

I reckon Lizzie showed them kindergarten kids a thing or two about civility and stickin' with the issues. I was happy to see ol' Jack givin' Lizzie some credit now an' then. She returned the favour, too. They both come across like competent folks who could work together.

I gotta give young Steve Pakin a pat on the back, too. He was a good referee, mostly. I reckon that's a dang tough job refereein' a five-way jawfest an' keepin' it fair an' square.

Harper come across with what I'd call an air of paternalism. Kinda smug an' smirky like he's toleratin' these monkeys but he ain't got much respect fer 'em. I didn't find him to be credible but I reckon that's cause he was fibbin' an' exaggeratin' all the time. I figger what's doin' the Cons an' Harper the most harm is they ain't released a platform. I heard somebuddy say they was waitin' on the Aussies to get it deliverered.

I reckon if Harpoon don't release a platform an' still trounces the hapless Grits, it'll sure say somethin'. I ain't sure what. "Blind leadin' the blind" comes to mind. Don't worry. Be happy. I wear sweaters. I wonder where Sweater Boy keeps his thermostat set in the wintertime. I wonder if he starts in wearin' the long johns in the winter so's to save on the heatin' bill an' send out less so-called greenhouse gases.

Duceppe done okay, I reckon... fer a rotten separatist BlocHead. I figger he's a good feller doin' what he can fer his people. Only thing is, he figgers his people is Q-beckers an' not all Canajuns. Ma sez he seemed more like a Premier negotiatin' with Harper the PM. He's a dang good parlay l'anglais feller, sez I. Dion's got a lot better in the speakin' English department but he still sed a coupla things I didn't catch last night. Then, maybe it was just on accounta he was puttin' me to sleep.

My ol' Dad was a salesman. He's been dead fer 10 years, this year. He woulda had a good laugh at ol' Dion an' his hapless salesmanship skills. Dion could use some lessons from my ol' Dad. First off, Dion blew the sales job of the tax shift on day one way back in the springtime. He give hisself the entire summer to sell it and he had the perfect opportunity to sell it last night but he was lackin' in the lustre department.

He oughta been closin' the sale or closed it already. Last night, he looked like he ain't quite sure why he decided to sell this here vacuum cleaner he's callin' the Green Shift. He can't close the sale on accounta he opened it all wrong. That mighta worked if there weren't a few other vacuum cleaner guys standin' on John Q. Voter's doorstep. Poor feller dragged his party into a big hole. I figger he's sincere and dedicated. A fine Canajun. Useless in the sales department.

The worst part about it is Dion took a good Green Party policy an' turned it into political cyanide fer the next 10 or 20 years. I ain't sure Lizzie helped out Dion much, like they was tryin' to say she would. I figger she sold Green Party policy and not Liberal policy. I like that she talked about stuff other than the environment and had positions that differ with the Libs. Like on NAFTA and Afghanistan and the danged economy and health care.

Anyways, friends an' foes, I had a few people emailin' an' wondering where ol' JB's hidin' out lately. Don't worry, kids, this ol' codger-blogger's still up an' walkin' an' cheerin' on the gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May.

JimBobby

More Free Green Advice for Liberals: Make Lemonade

Whooee! There's an old saying that goes, "When life throws you lemons, make lemonade." It ain't too cryptic. If you get into a situation that looks bad, turn it around by making the best out of it. Right now, the Grits are on the receiving end of a truckload of lemons in the form of a trademark issue regarding the LPC's just-announced Green Shift policy and a private company that has been using that name for a few years. Talk of infringement, cease and desist letters and lawsuits is in the air.

Here are some of the products offered by GreenShift.ca:

• Non-toxic, Biodegradable, cups, plates, bowls, cutlery, bags, wrapping…
• Non-toxic, Biodegradable cleaning products
• Non-toxic, Non Green House Gas emitting fuels
• Fair Trade, Shade Grown, Organic Coffees from around the world
• Chlorine Free, High Post Consumer Recycled Content Paper Products – toilet paper, towels, nose tissues, envelopes… containers.. bags… boxes..

Just the sort of supplies that would come in handy at a summer BBQ. Say... aren't the Liberals planning to promote their Green Shift at scores of BBQs this summer? Wouldn't it be a good idea if those BBQs were as Earth-friendly as possible -- both for the sake of the planet and for the sake of public relations?

Do I need to connect the dots?

I'm involved with my local community hall. We use a fair amount of the types of products offered by Green Shift. I've been advocating that our hall look into using non-toxic, biodegradable, cups, plates, bowls, cutlery and cleaning products. The switchover to green products has been on the back burner, mainly due to my own laziness wrt sourcing this stuff. Thanks to the controversy surrounding the Green Shift moniker, I have a ready source and I'll be pushing for a trial purchase by our community hall.

JimBobby

Selling the Carbon Tax to Climate Change Skeptics

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I just left a bigass comment over to Jennifer Smith's fine boog, Runesmith. She's got a good piece about the Green Shift and it attracted a comment from AGW skeptic and anti-Green Shifter Raphael Alexander. I like ol' Raph. He ain't afraid to wander into the Pergressive Boogeysphere and he don't bow down and worship the infallible King Steve like a lot o' Boogin' Tories do.

Here's how I tried sellin' the carbon tax to Rafe.

Even if you're an AGW skeptic, there are many advantages to the tax shift. GHG's are closely related to other pollutants. When we reduce GHG's we reduce many conventional pollutants at the same time. While you may doubt AGW, I suspect you accept the fact that pollution kills. "Bad air days" in the Great Lakes basin are killing people. The latest estimate of premature deaths due to poor air quality is 9,000+/year. The most conservative estimates put the figure at 3,000. Take your pick. Neither is acceptable.

Regarding the shift away from income tax, this is something most people should welcome. We should try not to penalize success and the less we tax income and profits, the more we encourage entrepreneurship and productivity. Some people call it "takin' care of business and workin' overtime."

With or without a carbon tax, energy costs are rapidly rising. This trend isn't going to reverse itself. Energy costs will rise and our dependence upon fossil fuels will further hurt our economy. Anything we can do to reduce our dependence on expensive fossil fuels will make us more competitive. A carbon tax is specifically aimed at reducing fossil fuel use. Whether that reduction is for the sake of the planet or for the sake of competitiveness and financial efficiency doesn't matter. Reduction of dependence is a worthwhile goal in and of itself.

I don't take much issue with the "tax on everything" characterization. So what? If you can get an offsetting reduced tax on income and the average Canadian is not clobbered with thousands of dollars in new taxes, it really doesn't matter if it is on everything. What matters is how many dollars you pay and how many dollars you get back via reduced income taxes or, in the case of low income Canadians, refundable tax credits.

The per capita average carbon footprint for Canadians is between 15-18 tonnes per year. If we are to pay $10/tonne, the average Canadian's net share would be about $200-$250 after some administrative and overhead costs are added.

Almost everyone can reduce their carbon footprint and, by doing so, reduce both their taxes and their outlay on fossil fuels. In a relatively fair system, those who use more than average fossil fuel will pay more tax. Those who use less than average, will pay less. Everyone will pay, though. Nobody denies that.

AGW aside, the planet's in trouble and our taxation system is designed to stifle income. We allow industry to use the shared atmosphere as a dump without any charge to them at all. Oil industry insiders refer to the practice of burning off waste gas at refineries as "sky dumping." Saves money. So what if it pollutes and kills.

Economist after economist is lining up behind a carbon tax. If you believed King Steve on income trusts, then you can believe he won't do exactly as Dion and most economists are suggesting... years from now. It's already too little, too late.

JimBobby

Elizabeth May Needs to be in TV Debates to Defend Against Dion

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I been agitatin' to get the gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May, into the TV debates when an election comes around. Up yonder at the top of my boog, you'll notice a yellow banner for Demand Democratic Debates. I'd be happy as Larry if you'd click it and sign the petition.

I was just leavin' a comment over to Jimmy Curran, the What Do I Know Grit's boog. It occurred to me that now, more than ever, Lizzie needs to be in the TV debates. Stephane Dion has set his sights on Green Party support. I wrote up a boog story about Dion wooing us treehuggers a coupla days ago. We need Lizzie up there on the TV remindin' voters that the real green party is the Green Party.

With Dion actively targeting us, it wouldn't be fair if we ain't got a voice defending us and tryin' to retain and build on the great support the Greens is experiencin'. The only party that has experienced significant growth since the last election is the Green Party. Now, Dion wants to scoop soft Green support away. I hope the fatcat TV execs on the Broadcast Consortium don't help him get away with it.

JimBobby

Woo, Woo, Woo Your Vote - Dion Targets Greens

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I was just over to Jason Cherniak's boog and I seen a quote from Stephane Dion that makes it even more clear that the Grits are casting a covetous eye at us treehuggin' Greens. Here's what Jason said that Dion said:

"We will ask Canadians to join our growing coalition - one that crosses party lines and moves us beyond outdated notions of what it means to be right-wing or left-wing".

Coalition? I ain't sure what coalition he's talkin' about. His reiteration of Green Party policy was sure to get support from Greens but I don't think there's much of a coalition beyond a non-compete agreement that affects just 2 of 308 ridings. Greens will be running against Liberals in 306 ridings.

It ain't the "coalition" part that says Dion's targeting Greenies, though. It's the part about "outdated notions of what it means to be right-wing or left-wing." Sheesh! The gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May, has been describing the Greens as neither right nor left forever. Jimmy Harris was on that theme before Lizzie.

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. That's the mantra us treehuggin' Greenies been chantin' since day one. Neither right nor left.

It's flattering that Dion has been so eager to adopt GPC policy. First, he says he's going to impose a "price on carbon." Then, he morphs it into a a carbon tax, straight out of Vision Green. Then, he lets everybody know that it ain't just a new tax but it's a tax-shift and it's revenue neutral. If you've been keepin' up with Green Party policy, you'll know that these are longtime GPC planks.

Now, Dion is not just taking our policies, he's starting to describe his party as neither right nor left. I can't really blame Dion for trying to siphon off soft Green support. He may just find, however, that Green support isn't as soft as it was once considered. In the recent by-elections as well as the October 2007 Ontario election, Green support at the ballot box was pretty much the same as Green support in pre-election opinion polls. Even so, there was no concerted Liberal effort to grab Green votes. Next time will be different.

With the Liberals and Conservatives polling at a see-sawing virtual dead heat, the double-digit support that the Greens have been getting looks mighty attractive, I'm sure. If Dion could woo just half of GPC supporter into the Liberal fold, he could win a minority. If he could reduce GPC support back to the 4%-5% we got in the last two elections, he might even get a majority.

It's gonna be a lot tougher than just talkin' the talk on a few lifted GPC policies, I reckon. A lotta new Green support is coming from disgruntled Grits who had their fill of talk-no-walk.

JimBobby

Revenue Negative, Revenue Neutral, Revenue Positive

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I was just over to BigCityLiberal MJ's boog where he's on about Andrew Coyne. Coyne says Dion flubbed the presentation of the tax-shift (d'uh...) and should have presented it as a massive reduction in income tax and then explained where the lost revenue would be coming from. Coyne floated the idea that the tax should be introduced as "Revenue Negative".

Coyne's on the money when he sez Dion flubbed the presentation. Bigtime. As to the Revenue Negative aspect, I'll get into that soon. First, I need to take issue with one thing BCL said:

Dion's promise is that, if the average Canadian is going to pay an extra $1,000 to for example heat their home, they will get $1,000 in income tax cuts.

Wrong and wrong.

I disagree with Coyne's across-the-baord Revenue Negative idea and also with the idea that everyone who spends an additional $1000 in Carbon Tax will have their Income Tax reduced by exact same amount. As far as I know, Dion has not made such a promise. I'm open to be corrected but if Dion has any understanding of how a tax-shift actually works to reduce carbon, he cannot make such a promise.

Of course, we don't have any real details from Dion, so far, as to how the tax-shift will be implemented. That's another part of his flub-a-dub on presenting his idea when it was only half-baked. Half-baked wouldn't be so bad if we got a peek at the recipe and knew what the tax-shift would mean for various types of income earners and carbon outputters.

If the eventually to be released LPC plan is like the GPC plan, Revenue Neutrality is at the receiving end -- not at the paying end. Total taxes collected will remain at the same level as now. Taxes payable by individuals will be directly related to their carbon output.

I think that for many middle-income earners, the tax-shift will, indeed, be Revenue Positive. That's positive for the taxpayer, negative for the tax receiver (that's the Receiver General for Canada). Those who have taken or do take measures to reduce their carbon footprint will pay less carbon tax while still enjoying a break on income taxes. Low income earners will be accommodated and those who pay no tax at all will get "refund" cheques - just like many low income earners and poor people get credits under current tax laws.

Consider two typical middle-income earners with equal incomes. If all other things are equal (i.e. family size, RSP contributions, age, etc.), these two tax payers will each pay the same (reduced) amount of income tax.

Overall taxes will rise for the middle-income earner who owns a couple of SUV's, a power boat, some ATV's and snowmobiles; who drives everywhere instead of walking when practical; and who fails to be efficient with home heating and cooling.

Overall taxes will go down for the middle-income earner who practices conservation and efficiency. This practice is often referred to by naysayers and Luddites as "freezing to death in the dark."

I've taken many measures to reduce my own carbon footprint. I've also taken a few online tests to estimate my output and have consistently found that Ma and I use about 60% of what the average Canajun uses. We don't freeze in the dark. CFB lighting, thermal underwear, walking when practical, multi-tasking whenever we use a motor vehicle, digging dandelions and never buying chemical pesticides, composting, keeping the hot water heater set to a reasonable temp, etc. etc.

Despite the fact that we already use only about 60% of the energy used by average Canadian, we live in an older (1880), detached, wood frame house that could use plenty of energy efficiency upgrades. We live in a small town with only one supermarket, one drug store, one gas station, one lumberyard, one hardware store and one set of traffic lights. Not everything we need is available locally but most of it is and much of our shopping can be done on foot.

But, dang it all, we can do a lot better. Our old shack could really use better doors and windows. Once we start paying less income tax and we can see we'll be better rewarded by increasing our energy efficiency through tax reduction (and possible government incentive programs), we'll be a lot more likely to spring for a few thousand bucks' worth of 21st century windows and doors. We're already shopping.

I expect that a revenue neutral tax-shift will reward people like me and punish people like my boat-owning, 3 vehicle-owning, frequent jet traveling, air conditioner-using neighbours. Without a tax-shift, the best way Ma and I can save tax money is to lower our incomes by purchasing more expensible stuff -- like new business vehicles, trips to professional conferences, socking away more in RSP's or actually taking a cut in pay. With a tax-shift, we can make more money, spend less and ultimately pay less tax simply by reducing our carbon footprint -- something almost everyone can do, even if we've already done a lot.

That's the whole concept of a carbon tax: to get people to quit wasting energy. If we were to simply offset all carbon taxes with equal income tax reductions, we would create little incentive. The fact that consumers can lower their tax bill while lowering their energy bill is what makes a carbon tax work.

JimBobby

Dion in Limboland, How Low Can He Go?

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, pore ol' Stephane Dion is doin' worse than ever. The Trawna Star's got a poll out that says he's only got a 10% approval rating. They say that's the worst ever for a Liberal leader and even John Turner never went below 14%.

If I was a Liberal, I'd be talkin' about how to raise up Dion's popularity. I'd be suggestin' the Liberals make dang good use of the summer BBQ circuit to explain the tax-shift. Trouble is, when you're explainin', you're losin'. Like I said yesterday, Dion made a bigass goof when he leaked the carbon tax instead o' leakin' the other side of the tax-shift coin, massive income tax reductions.

If I were a Liberal and tryin' to sell the tax-shift, I'd make sure the phrase "tax-shift" was used way more than the phrase "carbon tax." I'd also try to invent a catchy slogan that captures the essence of the tax-shift. Maybe somethin' like "Tax what you burn, not what you earn."

If I were a Liberal, I'd have my ear to the ground and I'd be lookin' for counterpoints to every piece of negative spin that the opposition parties and pundits and skeptics are tossin' around. Since the Grits ain't already divulged details, they got time to make 'em up to suit whatever mud's comin' their way. End o' June, we're hearin'. That gives the Grits 6 weeks to cram all the necessary details to counter all the pre-emptive attacks. It'll make the pre-emptive attackers look dang stoopid, too.

If I were a Liberal, I'd make sure they get their most eloquent and polished speakers out on the hustings deliverin' a simple, concise and easily-intelligible tax-shift plan. Bob Rae and Iggy and Goodale gotta be stumpin' hard. I'd have plenty of hypothetical examples showin' how the plan affects average families, single parents, rural folks, small town folks, city folks, farmers, fishermen, seniors and the disabled.

If I were a Liberal, I'd make sure Dion goes to his English classes every week and I'd coach the hell out of him. Anybody else got trouble understanding what Dion's sayin' on that Mike Duffy Live commercial? I heard it 4 or 5 times before I figgered out he's sayin' "Watch Mike Duffy Live." Ma seen it for about the 10th time the other night and she sez to me, "What's he sayin'?"

Then, I'd get Dion and his polished English out there makin' the news all summer long.

I ain't a Liberal and the gal I adore, Earth Mother Lizzie May, is already ridin' high on approval. If Dion'd just be more like Lizzie, he'd maybe turn it around. Then again, if voters like the tax-shift plan Dion adopted from Green Party policy, maybe they'd rather get the real thing along with a real dynamic, credible leader.

JimBobby

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

A Rant on the Afghanistan Compromise

Whooee! I was just over at Saskatchewan Liberty Train where John Murney was praisin' the Liberals for makin' a bigass compromise on Afghanistan and the 2011 extension. I know I wrote about this same thing a coupla days ago but I left a big rantin' comment over to SLT and I'm recyclin' here.

The bigass elephant in the room is the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. We are not fightin' terrorists. We are siding with one group of terrorists against another group. The government that our kids are dying for is ruled under Sharia Law as entrenched in its brand new constitution. The government we are dying for considers it a death penalty offense to convert from Islam to Christianity. The government we are propping up issues the death sentence for questioning fundamentalist Islam's treatment of women.

Although the new constitution guarantees education to girls and women, only 30% of grade school age girls attend school. Less than 8% of girls attend secondary school.

We've spent $6.1 billion on military effort and only $741 million on reconstruction. On top of that, we know that about 90% of intended aid money goes to bribes and graft.

The people we installed by way of a "democratic" election are former(?) CIA operative Hamid Karzai and the Northern Alliance. These are warlords and drug dealers. They are not the least bit interested in curbing opium growth or in modern reforms. They are simply using NATO to help them stay in power and they are gaining personally every day.

Canadian kids are dying to protect a narco-state so riddled with corruption that it cannot even be trusted with its own police payroll. They are torturers and woman abusers and we force ourselves to look the other way so we can somehow justify our presence.

Karzai has been negotiating with the Taliban for years. He's admitted as much publicly. We are simply supporting Taliban-lite in its civil war with Taliban-heavy. Taliban-heavy kills people by executing them in soccer fields. Taliban-lite kills people by supplying them with addictive drugs and taking an active part in the illicit international narcotics trade. Both wings of the Taliban are torturers and misogynists. Both wings accept Sharia Law.

And we are sacrificing young, dedicated, Canadian lives to prop up Taliban-lite. Now, thanks to the great compromise, Dion and the Grits have agreed to 2 more years of senseless death without the slightest indication that we will be any more successful in the future than we've been in the past.

Every Canadian death from 2009-2011 will be on the heads of Dion and the Liberals. The Liberals support this unjustifiable waste of life, limb and money and they're giving King Steve carte blanche for one reason only: they're afraid to face the voter. Canadians shouldn't have to die in needless battles so the Liberals don't have to face the electorate.

JB

Winning Issues for a Spring Election

Whooee!

Well friends an' foes, I was yammerin' in a comments' section gabfest over to Scotty's boog and a feller commentin' as "Jim" left this choice morsel:

Jim Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 8:14 am

Yes Liberal MP’s, call an election on the issue of Muslim prisoners that try to torture, blow up and murder our troops. It is such a winning issue to go on.

Please do it, and do it now!

Pay attention to how he refers to the enemy as Muslim. When Elizabeth May pointed out that the Taliban uses the "Christian/Crusader" invasion as a method to bolster recruiting, that message is spun and deliberately misinterpreted. Ms. May was entirely correct that the optics of a North American Christian army is playing into the hands of the Taliban. As usual, the CPC chose to play politics with Canadian soldiers lives and decided to ridicule a suggestion that one of NATO's tactics might play into the hands of the enemy.

Meanwhile, we have dozens of BT's and commenters like Jim characterizing the enemy as Muslims and drooling at the prospect of their torture.

News flash, Jim: Canadians don't want our brave dedicated men and women in the Forces to be ordered to violate the Geneva Conventions. Canadians want to be proud of our good soldiers. Canadians want to help Afghani Muslims build a peaceful society. Canadians do not defend or relish the idea that our allies are torturing the prisoners we hand over to them.

I've been hoping we get a chance to tell Harper and his gang of muzzled ministers just what we think of their government. I've expressed disappointment at Stephane Dion's failure to allow his caucus to bring down the worst government in Canadian history. So, while I find Jim's comment offensive and counterproductive to our mission in Afghanistan, I do agree with one part of it.

Here's how I responded over at Scott's DiaTribes.

I hope Dion grows a pair and we go to the polls.

• A PM that continually lies to Canadians and to Parliament is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• Ministerial incompetence in multiple ministries is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• Embarrassment of Canada on the world stage is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• Canada blindly propping up the corrupt, warlord-ruled, narco-state known officially as The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• The wedge-driving, divisive, region-versus-region tactics of the current government is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• The mismanagement of the economy and failure to reduce personal income tax while doling out billions to the tar sand developers is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• The reneging of the Atlantic Accords is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• The lack of accountability and transparency from a government that was elected on just those issues is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• The failure to make any improvements in healthcare waiting times is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• The lockstep march with George W. Bush and the secret SPP talks aimed at eliminating Canadian sovereignty with a North American Union is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• The lip service and inaction on the environment is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• The failure of Canada to comply with the Geneva Conventions is a winning issue to go on.
  
  
• The blatant racism of CPC supporters who refer to the enemy as Muslims while deriding anyone who says the enemy is framing this as a holy war is a winning issue to go on.
  

How many more winning issues does Dion need before he does the right thing?

Change the climate in Parliament. Vote Green.

Let's put an end to this. Soon.

JimBobby

"Liberal" Globe Can't Identify Liberal Leader

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, if you ever read the comments section at the Globe and Mail or if you listen to the Boogin' Tories, you'll have heard that the Globe & Mail is a Liberal Party mouthpiece. Nevermind the fact that the Globe endorsed Harper in 2006.

I'd figger that if the Globe editors are such Liberal sycophants, they'd be able to pick Liberal Leader Stephane Dion out of a line-up. They can't.


That ain't Dion. It's a feller with gray hair an' glasses but it sure as hell ain't Dion.

I think they got Dion mixed up with nincompoop pathologist Dr. Charles Smith.



JB

Hapless Hanglish Harranguing

Whooee! Ever since the Grits made Dion their bossman, I been sayin’ he’s gotta do two things to whip Harper. He’s gotta talk tough and he’s gotta talk English.

Over at Stageleft, the Stage Coach Driver's got a post sayin' Dion ain't cuttin' the mustard. A commenter by the name of "o" pointed out that King Steve's French weren't so good at first but it's a lot better now. O's a francophone, by the way. Most o' this here boog story is a recycled version of of my comment at Stageleft.

With all due respect to the Story of O, Dion needs English more than Harper needs French. That’s just arithmetic. Harper could conceivably win without a single francophone riding but Dion couldn’t come close to winnin’ without a single anglo riding. The French Fact is that francophones are a sizable — 20%, I think — minority.

I reckon a Canajun PM oughta be fluidly conversant in both languages. From what I seen of Dion in the press over the summer, it looked like he was doin’ a lot better with the English. Then I seen him on the TV yesterday an’ I had to turn up the volume an’ light up all my francosense to try makin’ head or tail o’ what he was yammerin’ on about.

I did get the gist of it but, like SL sez, he really didn’t pull it off.

I know Dion’s been takin’ Hanglish lessons an’ he’s made some progress. Looks like he’s also tryin’ to be more pitbull an’ less perfesser in the House of Comments. The troublem is that he ain’t good at either an’ he’s tryin’ to do both at the same time.

Lotsa non-EFL (English as a first language) speakers slip into a heavy accent when they get their dander up. Fer most people, in most dander-up situations, that ain’t much of a real problem. Fer the leader of the official opposition in televised parliamentary proceedings, it ain’t good enough.

Dion’s the team captain. He oughta do like Harpoon done. Sit back an’ let yer light brigade lead the charge. While he’s sittin’ back, he can privately practice up on some Impassioned English for Francophones lessons.

JimBobby

Election Fatigue? "There'd better not be a f*ckin' election."

Whooee! Us wonks who live an' breathe politics probbly wouldn't mind if there was an election every six months. I don't reckon the non-wonks is so keen on the non-stop campaign bullcrap that dominates the news during the election.

It ain't the 5 minute ballot markin' job that has some fatigued. It's the constant jabs, sound bytes, namecallin' an' brinksmanship of the election cycle. An election don't just happen on election day. Officially, federal elections take about 6 weeks. Unofficially, Harper's been campaignin' fer a majority since the last election.

Canajuns want Parliament to work. We pay our MP's to represent us and to manage the country on our behalf. If we are in non-stop campaign mode, our MP's are busy tryin' to win an election an' not busy doin' the job we're payin' 'em fer.

Yesterday, in some boog comments here an' there, I come out fer Dion to stand up fer principle an' show he's a man an' fight an election. I figger it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" choice. Dion's troublem is with his image as a meek an' mild perfesser. His actions vis-a-vis the throne speech only serve to reinforce that negative image.

My wifemate (I call 'er Ma) was watchin' the TV news with me yeserday afternoon. They started talkin' about the possibility of an election. Ma ain't no fan of King Steve an' she don't usually cuss too much except when she's really really irritated or tired (fatigued). When she seen 'em talkin' election, Ma sed, "There'd better not be a f*ckin' election."

JimBobby

(Most o' this post was originally written as a comment at Red Tory.)

Dion's Got Problems

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I was watchin' the Lloyd Robertson TV News Show last night an' they were yammerin' on all 'bout this here new 'pinion poll that don't look good fer the GrittyBoys. This here poll sez the Liberals lost 8% support since back in December an' most o' that support - 5% - went t' Earth Mother Lizzie May an' the Greenies. The ConMen picked up 3% an' the Dippers an' rotten separatist BlocHeads didn't budge.

Mebbe now that the Dips see us Greens ain't takin' from them but from the Grits, they'll lay off in the bad-mouth-the-greens department.

Accordin' t' that poll, the biggest troublem fer the Liberals is their leader. Dion comes up short in jest about every question havin' t' do with leadership. Bad news, sez I.

I figger Dion's got two bigass problems an' here's what they are --

• His personality. Dion seems like the kinda guy you'd want fer a next door neighbour - quiet, timid, unassuming, intelligent, MYOB type, cuts his grass with a non-powered mower, rakes leaves instead o' usin' a bigass blower. You know. Good neighbour stuff -- not bossman o' Canada stuff.
  

  His English. It ain't good. Sure, Harpoon's French ain't great but Harpoon don't need French-speakin' voters as much as Dion needs English-speakers. Everybuddy knows Dion's a university perfessor an' we expect better English from him than we accepted from Chretien. Folks say it ain't that he's incapable o' learnin' but that he never thought it was very important. It is, sez I.

I never woulda thought Harper's personality would be on the plus side fer the cardboard guy who shakes hands with the kiddies. When Harpoon wins in personality, it can only mean there's sumpin' wrong with the other guy.

If the Grits wanna pull their fat outta the fire, they gotta put a new suit on Dion an' they gotta get him a language coach. If they don't whip him inta shape, they're gonna have their own Kim Campbell on their hands -- 'cept Dion won't even get t' be PM like Kim did.

I ain't bettin' the Grits'll take my advice an' that's jest fine an' dandy on accounta the Grits' loss is the Greens' gain.

Yores trooly,
JimBobby

"Soft on Terrorism?" Don't Insult Our Intelligence

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I was jest over t' StageLeft an' the Stage Coach Driver's got a boog story with a good letter t' Pryminister Steve tellin' Harpoon what's what an' what's his job in question period. It ain't rocket science. His job is t' answer questions.

Reason he wrote the letter was on accounta when King Steve got asked 'bout how he's gonna help out the autoworkers in Ontariariario, Steve answered back that Dion's soft on terrism. That got me writin' a bigass comment an' now I'm recyclin' most o' that selfsame comment inta this here boog story.

That ol’ “soft on terrism” crappola don’t cut any shit with most Canajuns, anymore - if it ever did. Harpoon might reinforce the support o’ sum Boogin’ Tories or Alien Alberts but he ain’t gonna win over any new Cons by usin’ Georgie Dubya’s wornout name-callin’ tactics. Bush’s in the dumper. He might still be Harpoon’s hero but he ain’t got the support of even 30% of his own Merkan people an’ he’s a liability t’ his own Repugnacian party.

Canajuns ain’t livin’ in a vacuum. We get the bigass Merkan news networks on our TV’s. We heard that dumbass line bein’ used by the Bushman an’ we know that under the Bushman’s reign of terror, terrism has become a bigger troublem. His version o’ bein’ tuff has helped make the world a less safe place an’ there ain’t much of anybuddy who don’t see it that way in 2007.

We ain’t stoopid enuff t’ fall fer that BushTalk from outta our pryminister. I reckon Harpoon’s insultin’ the intelligence o’ Canajuns. Not only by this dumbass Bushism but by thinkin’ nobuddy notices when he doesn’t answer the question. Come t’ think of it, he’s insultin’ Canajuns’ intelligence with that ridiculous green disguise he’s been wearin’ lately. Green, my ass.

Regardin’ the dirty ol’ car makers, there’s a golden opportunity in the green economy department. We give billions in tax breaks t’ the big 3 an’ we can put sum strings on the corporate welfare so’s they hafta do things like produce hybrid cars instead o’ Lincoln Navigators in Canajun factories. Mebbe even hybrid Navigators, who knows?

We can also encourage the automakers t’ clean up their act and reduce their own carbon footprint. I’m talkin’ tax breaks fer implementin’ emissions reduction. That money is money we keep here in Canada instead o’ payin’ it out in Kyoto penalties t’ other countries. Win-win stuff.

Harpoon’s got quit insultin’ our intelligence an’ start usin’ that big egghead o’ his t’ work on solutions instead o’ all o’ this here natterin’ negativity an’ polytickle finger pointin’.

JimBobby