The Real Big Election... Canada!

[D'rok]

Well, keep in mind that it was you that was accusing me of not reading or understanding the green plan. I wanted to emphasize that not only have I read the plan, I've done a bit more indepth analysis than just reading the Liberal talking points.

Sorry about that. You've obviously read it and thought about it. I misunderstood your original post.

I wouldn't necessarily consider this a 'trickle down' argument... I've been concentrating on just 2 main carbon producers... heating fuel (for which there is a fairly direct link between the producer and consumer) and electrical generation (which are typically provincial utilities and thus have a fairly, ahem, intimate relationship between supplier and consumer).

I could have attempted to also include carbon emissions by other areas of the economy, but that would have been very complex, and pretty pointless (since all areas of the country have carbon-emitting manufacturing/farming/resource based activities. I was concentrating on the items where the cause and effect were most obvious.


Well, first of all, I didn't go into detail about all costs to the industry. I concentrated on heating fuel (which the Liberals themselves predicted would see an increase due to the carbon tax), and electricity. Provicinial power companies don't (or at least shouldn't) be operating at a profit, so either they will have to pass any cost increases onto the consumers (many of them residential or government), or operate at a deficit (which eventually requires us to pay through provincial taxes.)

Secondly... even if I was talking about corporate emission of carbon and not residental, why exactly do you think that the carbon taxes won't be passed on to the user in some way? If you increase costs (e.g. increased fuel costs due to carbon tax) there isn't that much that can happen. Either:
- Costs are passed on to the consumer
- Profits are cut (which means that anyone who has a pension plan or RRSPs will see their investment returns diminish)
- The company decides to shift production to some part of the world where production is cheaper.

You are completely discounting the possibility of innovation, development of new technology, and a re-orientation towards efficiency. Part of the purpose behind the tax is to incentivize that sort of behaviour and to discourage some current practices. A tax like this could potentially be an agent of positive change.

In other words, you are ignoring the possibility that industry costs could be reduced or offset through flexibility, innovation and adaptation.

Yeah, companies will get a corporate tax cut to partly offset the costs of the carbon tax, but its the same situation I described earlier... companies in provinces with high usage of hydro will come out better off than companies in provinces where fossil fuel is used.

I have no problem with that. If one accepts the premise that carbon-intensive industries are causing environmental problems, then those industries should be shouldering some of the burden.

 

[Segnosaur]

You are completely discounting the possibility of innovation, development of new technology, and a re-orientation towards efficiency. Part of the purpose behind the tax is to incentivize that sort of behaviour and to discourage some current practices. A tax like this could potentially be an agent of positive change.

I had thought about that, but realized that that this wouldn't really be a big factor.

First of all, innovations (at least significant ones) take years (if not decades) to accomplish. While we're wating for some new 'clean' technology to come along, we (at least those of us getting screwed over by the green shift) will continue paying.

Secondly, the development of new technology is, for the most part, outside the abilities of most individuals to accomplish anything significant. Its also outside the abilities of many (most) businesses to accomplish.

Heck, we don't even really need any new technology... if the provincial government simply built a couple of new nuclear reactors we could drastically cut our carbon emissions. But as I said before, there's nothing that I as an individual can do (at least until the city zones my backyard to allow me to build a reactor.)

And while it is possible that it might 'encourage' people to change there practices, just how much do you think it can accomplish? Many people have already taken steps to reduce their energy costs simply as a way to save money. In fact, our carbon emissions actually peaked a year or 2 ago. Its quite possible that any incentive to innovate already exists from the uncontrolled changes in oil prices.

Yeah, companies will get a corporate tax cut to partly offset the costs of the carbon tax, but its the same situation I described earlier... companies in provinces with high usage of hydro will come out better off than companies in provinces where fossil fuel is used.

I have no problem with that. If one accepts the premise that carbon-intensive industries are causing environmental problems, then those industries should be shouldering some of the burden.

But its not just the companies that directly emit carbon...

I work in an office. We use electricity to power our computers. Because I'm in Ontario, some of that electricity was generated by fossil fuels (and thus it will be hit by the carbon tax). A competitor company from Quebec will not have the same problems with carbon tax. I'm not in a heavily 'carbon-intesnsive industry'. Its just a business office. But we end up getting put at a competitivie disadvantage. And its not like our company has the facilities to do R&D to come up with some new green technology.

 

[D'rok]

I had thought about that, but realized that that this wouldn't really be a big factor.

First of all, innovations (at least significant ones) take years (if not decades) to accomplish. While we're wating for some new 'clean' technology to come along, we (at least those of us getting screwed over by the green shift) will continue paying.

Groundwork has already been laid for energy innovation. It isn't a question of going back to the drawing board and manifesting new technology whole cloth, althought that may also occur.

Secondly, the development of new technology is, for the most part, outside the abilities of most individuals to accomplish anything significant. Its also outside the abilities of many (most) businesses to accomplish.

Heck, we don't even really need any new technology... if the provincial government simply built a couple of new nuclear reactors we could drastically cut our carbon emissions. But as I said before, there's nothing that I as an individual can do (at least until the city zones my backyard to allow me to build a reactor.)

You, as an individual, would purchase your energy from that less carbon-intensive source.

And while it is possible that it might 'encourage' people to change there practices, just how much do you think it can accomplish? Many people have already taken steps to reduce their energy costs simply as a way to save money. In fact, our carbon emissions actually peaked a year or 2 ago. Its quite possible that any incentive to innovate already exists from the uncontrolled changes in oil prices.

You keep focusing on individual people. We all buy energy from energy companies. It is those companies that will need to innovate as a result of the carbon tax, not you and me. Individuals reducing energy costs is pragmatic and practical, but not really the issue.

But its not just the companies that directly emit carbon...

I work in an office. We use electricity to power our computers. Because I'm in Ontario, some of that electricity was generated by fossil fuels (and thus it will be hit by the carbon tax). A competitor company from Quebec will not have the same problems with carbon tax. I'm not in a heavily 'carbon-intesnsive industry'. Its just a business office. But we end up getting put at a competitivie disadvantage. And its not like our company has the facilities to do R&D to come up with some new green technology.

Your organization doesn't generate its own energy - it also purchases it from energy companies. The burden of R&D falls on the energy company, and energy companies do have the resources. Your organization has the same pragmatic burden of reducing energy costs that individuals do.

 

[Jimbo07]

Well.

That was fun.

 

[Morrigan]

300 million dollars for this? Yeah, 'twas to be expected but still.

I voted for the Neo Rhino. I wanted to cancel my vote but when I saw the Rhinoceros Party was back, I checked the box. Duceppe is leader of my county anyway so it doesn't matter who I'd vote for.

Charismatic leader... Sorry I had to laugh.

No kidding. Dion has the charisma of a puddle of mud and about as much balls as my pet cat.

http://vincentarsenault.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/dion.JPG

HAHAHAHAHAHA I hadn't seen that one before. Awesome.

 

[SDC]

How come (still and again) the Canadians I know all voted against Harper? And why does the supposedly majority left keep losing?

 

[Madalch]

How come (still and again) the Canadians I know all voted against Harper?

Because you don't hang out with rednecks who think "librul" is a profanity?

And why does the supposedly majority left keep losing?

Because we're split between two or three parties, one of which is considered extreme, and the other is still on a "time-out" for some mis-dealings in a previous administration.

 

[Fitter]

How come (still and again) the Canadians I know all voted against Harper? And why does the supposedly majority left keep losing?

Spreading that vote amongst 3+ left wing parties is a wonderful way of diluting it. In my district (Calgary-Nosehill) nearly 70% voted conservative showing there are large pockets of conservatism here in the west.

 

[Madalch]

Spreading that vote amongst 3+ left wing parties is a wonderful way of diluting it. In my district (Calgary-Nosehill) nearly 70% voted conservative showing there are large pockets of conservatism here in the west.

In my constituency, it was about 42% NDP, 45% Conservative, 9% Green and 4% Liberal. If half of the Green/Lib supporters had voted NDP instead, I'd have a different MP today.

At the risk of derailing the thread (which should be over now anyway), I've often thought that we should get a second choice vote- "If my candidate doesn't place in the top two, switch me over to this other candidate" type of thing.

 

[gtc]

In my constituency, it was about 42% NDP, 45% Conservative, 9% Green and 4% Liberal. If half of the Green/Lib supporters had voted NDP instead, I'd have a different MP today.

At the risk of derailing the thread (which should be over now anyway), I've often thought that we should get a second choice vote- "If my candidate doesn't place in the top two, switch me over to this other candidate" type of thing.

That is pretty much what happens in most Australian elections. We place a 1 beside the candidate we prefer and then order the other candidates from 2 to whatever. Sometimes we have to put a number beside every candidate (called preferential voting); sometimes not (called optional preferential voting).

Seems to work well here; though I would be surprised if the Canadian Conservatives would support it at the moment.

 

[Segnosaur]

How come (still and again) the Canadians I know all voted against Harper? And why does the supposedly majority left keep losing?

Before you consider the 'majority left' as loosing, keep in mind that not all of the parties are considered solidly 'left' all the time. The liberals are closer to the political center (although depending on the leader and the circumstances, they can vary from being centerists, to being just this side of full-blown socialists.)

The current incarnation of the Liberals is slightly to the left of 'political center', but there are differences in their econoic policy as compared to the NDP and Green party, so they do exist in a different part of the political spectrum as the others.

 

[Segnosaur]

That is pretty much what happens in most Australian elections. We place a 1 beside the candidate we prefer and then order the other candidates from 2 to whatever. Sometimes we have to put a number beside every candidate (called preferential voting); sometimes not (called optional preferential voting).

Seems to work well here; though I would be surprised if the Canadian Conservatives would support it at the moment.

Just out of curiosity, just how many 'major' parties do you have running there? (Not counting fringe or single issue parties.)

Such a system may work in Australia, but I can see it causing some problems in Canada. With only 3 major parties (Conservative, Liberal, and NDP) running in most english provinces, you'd expect any conservative or NDP voters to choose the Liberals as thier 'second choice' (due to the fact that they're in the political center). Perhaps if we had a bigger selection of 'main stream' parties?

 

[Segnosaur]

(Sorry for the delay in responding to this post; I got rather busy and lost track of this thread at the time. But just in case the original poster is still reading, I thought I'd follow up.)

First of all, innovations (at least significant ones) take years (if not decades) to accomplish. While we're wating for some new 'clean' technology to come along, we (at least those of us getting screwed over by the green shift) will continue paying.

Groundwork has already been laid for energy innovation. It isn't a question of going back to the drawing board and manifesting new technology whole cloth, althought that may also occur.

Nobody said that people had to 'go back to the drawing board'. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there still isn't a significant amount of research and development that is still required to make such 'clean' technology economically efficient.

Heck, even if someone came up with a 'perfect' energy source today, it still wouldn't have an immediate impact, since you would still need infrastructure to be built (building any power plants, putting up power lines, etc. not to mention any sort of government regulations that would be required that would add to the time frame.) So, while any Ontario residence are waiting for their new clean energy sources to provide their electricity, they still end up paying the carbon tax for at least a few years.

Secondly, the development of new technology is, for the most part, outside the abilities of most individuals to accomplish anything significant. Its also outside the abilities of many (most) businesses to accomplish.

You, as an individual, would purchase your energy from that less carbon-intensive source.

Problem with that argument is that electricity is fungable... if I purchase electricity from a 'less carbon-intensive' souce, that means less of this electricity is available to other people, and they'll have to buy electricity from coal/oil plants to compensate.

There's also the cost issue... if energy from this 'less carbon-intensive source' is competative with coal/oil, why aren't they already selling it to Ontario hydro? And if its more expensive, then it leads to the exact same problem as before... by having to buy power from this 'less carbon-intensive source', I have to spend more for energy, not because I'm more wasteful but because I happen to live in Ontario.

And while it is possible that it might 'encourage' people to change there practices, just how much do you think it can accomplish? Many people have already taken steps to reduce their energy costs simply as a way to save money. In fact, our carbon emissions actually peaked a year or 2 ago. Its quite possible that any incentive to innovate already exists from the uncontrolled changes in oil prices.

You keep focusing on individual people.

Actually, no I don't... In previous posts I've also pointed to the fact that companies can be affected too. (I just don't see the need to be overly wordy by repeating 'businesses and people' over and over again... many of the same problems exist for both.

We all buy energy from energy companies. It is those companies that will need to innovate as a result of the carbon tax, not you and me.

It is true that energy companies do have the resources to innovate. Problem is that the carbon tax isn't really that much of an incentive for them to innovate. After all, demand for electricty is not going to change significantly (note that I said significantly...), so Ontario hydro will still earn the same amount regardless of whether the price goes up due to a carbon tax.

I could also point out that electrical utilities are often government run/controlled, so the profit motive doesn't really affect them.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ummm... I'm always confused when people talk about "Quebec's concerns".

Quebec, broadly speaking, is not comfortable with the current constitutional state of affairs. The province had the Constitution Act, 1982 imposed on it without its consent, and has always advocated for greater autonomy in the federal/provincial division of powers. Also, the province has a separate legal system from the ROC and has different religious, linguistic and other cultural traditions.

I would have thought that these things go without saying. I am curious as to the source of your confusion.

Yes, I am familiar with the peculiarities of Quebec's system and its history. But pretty much everything has either A: Already been accomodated (e.g. we've allowed Quebec to keep significant powers, and its own legal system), or B: is really a non-issue with most people.

Your average Quebec voter probably doesn't care about this stuff, untill they get told by some nationalist "Hey you're being oppressed", even if the voter wouldn't care otherwise.

Yeah, I've head that argument used before... but given the nature of politics, it likely wouldn't take much for support for separation to increase... a charasmiatic spearatist leader, and some issue that they can fake outrage over is all it would take.

ETA: Remember, separation had been viewed by many as a 'dead issue' throughout much of the 80s before we almost had the country break up in the 90s.

After the Secession reference and the Clarity Act, unilateral secession is off the table. Unless, of course, Quebec decides to stage a revolution, and I don't think Quebeckers want that any more than we want to send in the tanks. Whatever happens, it will happen democratically.

Awe, how cute... you actually think the Clarity act means something.

Well, frankly, it doesn't. Separatists have always indicated that Quebec will control its own destiny. Even if the 'rest of Canada' didn't think the question was worded properly, that would not likely affect things in Quebec if they decided to declare independence unilaterally. Heck, the 'clarity act' doesn't even really clarify anything, since it doesn't actually lay out what an acceptable question is, or what a signficiant population of the vote is.

My opinion... the clarity act is worse than useless...it gives people a false sense of security, while providing no actual beneficial legal framework. Heck, it could even be used be separatists as a way to show how they're being 'controlled' by the rest of Canada.

Actually, if I were to write a 'clarity act', I'd do things totally differently:

- I'd set a rule that any question related to sovereignty would be considered a vote for separation. (None of this "the question wasn't worded clearly so you can't go"... "Yes we can"... "no you can't"...)
- I'd also set a threshold at 50%+1... none of this "you need more than just a simple majority"... "no, majority rules"... "No it doesn't"
- I'd spell out, very clearly, about what exactly 'separation' means... including: no more transfer payments, no MPs sent to Ottawa, no Canadian passports, Quebec will NOT automatically be part of any trade deals with Canada, and how we will respect the right of any part of Quebec which wishes to rejoin Canada. You see, in the last election, there were all sorts of rumours going around about how Quebec could still "separate", but send MPs to Ottawa, get money from the federal government, etc. Unfortunately, the federal government seemed to be doing nothing to squash those rumours.

Why would I do that? So voters know exactly what the ground rules are ahead of time. And more importantly, it will reduce the chance of people voting for separation not because they want outright separation, but as a way to blackmail the rest of Canada (i.e. vote for outright separation, but with the hopes that Canada would then appease Quebec to stay in... This actually has happened; my father visited northern Quebec on business right after the last referendum, and heard people make statements along the line of "we should have voted Yes... then we'd get more from Canada".)

There's likely a lot more danger of a 'yes' vote for separation in some future referendum than there is in an extremist religious conservative government voting in anti-abortion legislation, etc.

Anti-abortion legislation would have a tough time standing up to Charter review post-Morgentaler.

Which further justifies my postion... we have more to fear from separation then from a conservative government trying to enact 'morality' laws.

The Conservatives are quite capable of doing other equally draconian things, however. Bill C-61 is a perfect example.

Ummm... you're referring to the laws calling for tighter copyright restrictions? That's not exactly a bill involving 'moral' issues.

And its true that I disagree with a lot of bill C-61... but then, similar legislation has been enacted in other counties as well.

 

[gtc]

Just out of curiosity, just how many 'major' parties do you have running there? (Not counting fringe or single issue parties.)

Good question. We essentially have two major parties plus the Greens.

The Australian Labor Party are centre-left but still have a lot of labour union influence.

The 'Coalition' is a collection of parties on the right. Usually they put up only one candidate in each 'seat' (riding). Occasionally they can't agree on a single candidate.

The Greens got 8% of the vote last election but 22% in one inner-city electorate - enough to let them reach the final run-off in that seat.

In the recent past there was another party which did quite well on the far right (One Nation). Thanks to optional preferential; they actually helped the Labor party in the state elections.

The Greens and various independents mean that three cornered contests are not uncommon and winning the most first preferences is not a guarantee that you will win the contest.

Such a system may work in Australia, but I can see it causing some problems in Canada. With only 3 major parties (Conservative, Liberal, and NDP) running in most english provinces, you'd expect any conservative or NDP voters to choose the Liberals as thier 'second choice' (due to the fact that they're in the political center). Perhaps if we had a bigger selection of 'main stream' parties?

I think it might have something to do with having an odd number of parties and one party that is fairly much in the centre. The winner would be decided by the flow of preferences from the third placed candidate. If the Liberals were placed third, then I would imagine their preferences would split between NDP and Conservatives. If Liberals didn't come third then I would imagine they would gain the bulk of preferences from either the Conservatives or the NDP.

 

[D'rok]

Awe, how cute... you actually think the Clarity act means something...

It is legislation based on the Secession Reference. That case is worth a read if you really want to know the current state of Constitutional Law in Canada:

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs2-217/1998rcs2-217.html

Bottom line: secession is illegal but legitimate. The democratic will of Quebec, expressed as a clear vote on a clear question, requires all parties (aka Feds/Provinces/Quebec) to come to the negotiating table in good faith. This is how the law currently stands; the Clarity Act merely sets out the basics in statutory form. Either Quebec respects the rule of law, or it secedes unilaterally. If it secedes unilaterally, all bets are off. I stand by my assertion that Quebeckers are not interested in violent revolution.

...Why would I do that? So voters know exactly what the ground rules are ahead of time...

The Supreme Court and the Canadian Parliament are way ahead of you. The ground rules are set.

Ummm... you're referring to the laws calling for tighter copyright restrictions? That's not exactly a bill involving 'moral' issues.

I said "draconian", not "moral".

And its true that I disagree with a lot of bill C-61... but then, similar legislation has been enacted in other counties as well.

In some cases (e.g. USA, Australia), but not in others (e.g. New Zealand, Israel, Japan). Those that have followed the American DMCA model have suffered. Canada can do better.

 

[Pardalis]

Wow, I didn't know separation was such an issue this last election.

 

[D'rok]

It will always be an election issue as long as you keep sending separatists to Ottawa.

Still...a really, really big thank you for blocking the Conservative majority! We owe you one.

 

[Pardalis]

It will always be an election issue as long as you keep sending separatists to Ottawa.

And as long as there will be tempered and well intentioned Canadians such as yourself, staying in Canada won't be such a bad thing.

Still...a really, really big thank you for blocking the Conservative majority! We owe you one.

Actually, we lost in my county... to that damned little pr Trudeau.

 

[D'rok]

And as long as there will be tempered and well intentioned Canadians such as yourself, staying in Canada won't be such a bad thing.

Actually, we lost in my county... to that damned little pr Trudeau.

You mean he's not going to ride in on a white horse and lead the Liberals to glory?