It’s the day before the election and I can say honestly that I am terrified for the fate of my country. I do not have a soap box. I am not running for office. Many if not all of you know where I stand politically, and many of you disagree. Fine. Disagree if you will, but for the love of your country if not for respect for me, please give me the credence of an ear and an open mind. Let me make one last plea for the good of the nation before you go to the polls and do whatever most of you have already made up your minds that you’re going to do.
I’ve spent this election arguing tooth and nail against the Liberal Party, against the Green Party, and against the NDP party. I haven’t really paid any attention to the Bloc Quebecois, but then again, I only know about four people who would be in a position to vote for them anyway, and I don’t think any of them would. I’ve spent time defending the Conservative party – for good and for bad – to the ends of the blogosphere. It’s time to defend something else – something more important than the Conservative party, the Liberal party, the NDP, or any other party out there; something more important even than you and I. It’s time to defend the one thing, politically, that I truly believe in – to the exclusion of all other ideologies, and all other parties. It’s time to defend my country because the reality of the situation is that as the doomsday clock draws ever nearer for us, this country is, at heart, what is at stake. We are faced tomorrow with a choice – a choice to push that clock ever nearer to midnight and destroy this nation that I love, or a choice to pull ourselves back from the brink. So I ask you all to listen to my final plea, and that, as our countrymen have before us in time of crisis, you rise up to defend this nation – to defend Canada.
We have been faced time and time again in the news, in the papers, and by the talking heads representing every political interest and every agenda with words of crisis. Words and rhetoric designed to scare us into action one way or another. We are in the middle of a financial crisis. We are in the middle of an environmental crisis. Canada is faced with a crisis, and it is my firm belief that it’s very survival is at stake. With an arsenal of good intentions and bad ideas, Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May will do in four years or less what Paul Martin and Jean Chretien couldn’t do with thirteen years of lies, theft, and corruption. It is my firm belief that these two will destroy this country.
It is my belief that this nation has only one hope for the future in the coming trial – that hope is Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. Many of us are concerned about the type of country that our children will inherit. Having seen the plans that the Liberal, Green, and NDP parties have for my country, my greatest concern is that there will BE a country for our children to inherit – that there will be a future that is protected by the security of a job, and enriched by the finer things in life afforded to them by a good job, and a low cost of living. A future that exists in a greener world because of the policies put forward today: a future that, if the Liberal or Green party have their way, will not be possible.
The Conservative Party has been trumpeted about as uncaring and unfeeling, but I believe it’s time to correct that record. The fact is that Canadians are scared to lose our jobs, our homes, and our savings just as our neighbours to the south are. We are scared to be the victims of crime in our own homes, in our own neighbourhoods, and in our own streets. We are scared of not having clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. We’re scared that we won’t be able to provide a good standard of living for our families. Stephen Harper has presented us with an option that will answer to those – even if his rhetoric hasn’t. The Conservatives answer our fears for our environment in a way that also preserves our jobs, homes, and savings – through cautious, but progressive steps. These steps will not raise our cost of living in these times of economic uncertainty, and will work to preserve the jobs we have, as well as make new ones. The Conservative Party of Canada is looking out for Canadians at a time when we need our government more than ever to protect us. For me, that means that I can go to work every day secure in the knowledge that I have a job that I can reasonably expect to go to tomorrow because the demand for my services will still exist, and the company I work for won’t have folded due to economic pressure. That means that I get to reap the rewards of my work, and not see it all lost in taxes, and that the costs of goods that I need are low enough that I can afford them. It means that there will be a roof over my head to come home to when I’ve been away working, and it means that there will be money in the bank when I need it most. These needs will not be met for most of us if the economic platforms of the Liberal, NDP, or Green parties are turned into law. The Conservative Party offers me the hope of a job, of clean air, and of financial security – something the others assuredly aren’t.
Whether we see a carbon tax, the cessation of expansion of the Athabasca Tar Sands, the multi-billion dollar ramp-up of spending, or a combination of these, the economic platforms presented by the Liberal, Green, and NDP parties present us with one option and only one option: steadily increasing prices, steadily rising taxes, and less and less money in our pockets to pay the rent or put food on the table – ultimately, if things are allowed to progress, they give us the option of a bankrupt nation. We are afraid of losing our jobs, our homes, and our savings – yet this is the option that these parties present. I want to tell you that there IS hope, there IS another option: an option for moderation and caution – an option that will ensure a clean future through investment in green technology; an option that will protect out jobs by securing our resource sector as well as investing in our manufacturing sector; an option that will protect your savings and your homes by carrying on the sound economic practices that were put in place over the last two and a half years.
Leaders from all parties have said that in this election, “the choice is clear”. I echo their words: the choice IS clear. The choice we are faced with is between the high taxes, inflationary economic practices, and deficit spending – a recipe for the financial destruction of our nation – and the Conservative Party of Canada. Friends, the fate of our nation is in our hands – my only hope is that we be found worthy of that trust.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Photos and more
So for the first time since I've been travelling this time, I haven't had to do much work. I eventually have a report to write, but that won't take too long. Furthermore, the surprising lack of sun in this purportedly tropical country came to a sudden and welcome end today, as we finally saw the clouds broke and the day turned absolutely beautiful. As promised, there are some pictures to add. Including the much-talked about view of the Pacific off my balcony at the hotel.
And the mountains out my front window
So for the first time since I've been travelling this time, I haven't had to do much work. I eventually have a report to write, but that won't take too long. Furthermore, the surprising lack of sun in this purportedly tropical country came to a sudden and welcome end today, as we finally saw the clouds broke and the day turned absolutely beautiful. As promised, there are some pictures to add. Including the much-talked about view of the Pacific off my balcony at the hotel.
And the mountains out my front window
At present, most of my time is spent working in a companies rail yard, inspecting the rail tankers that they use to carry sulphuric acid. Overall, it's pretty straightforward work - most of the tanks suck, and I get to tell them why. Some of the tanks don't suck, and I also get to tell them why lol. However, the yard, like my hotel, borders on the pacific coast, and the view from the top of the rail cars is pretty good. Thanks, Yves, for taking the following photos of me (and the scenery) from the top of the rail car.
Now today was interesting. Normally, they work a six-day week here, with Sunday off. So we, in the interests of getting the job done as fast as possible (and taking advantage of the paid vacation for whatever time is left on the contract when the job is finished), we only worked a half-day.
The second half of the day, however, we went back to the markado - and fortunately, my Spanish skills have improved since then. So I was able to stock up on some much-needed groceries and things for the upcoming weeks (lesson number one in living on a perdiem).
Todays lessons also have to do with language:
1) Getting flirted with by hot foreign chicks is pretty cool when you're abroad. Knowing enough of their language to know they're flirting with you and not enough to know what they're actually saying or how to respond is less cool.
2) Thinking in English, listening in French, and talking in Spanish simultaneously is generally considered a bad idea.
At present, most of my time is spent working in a companies rail yard, inspecting the rail tankers that they use to carry sulphuric acid. Overall, it's pretty straightforward work - most of the tanks suck, and I get to tell them why. Some of the tanks don't suck, and I also get to tell them why lol. However, the yard, like my hotel, borders on the pacific coast, and the view from the top of the rail cars is pretty good. Thanks, Yves, for taking the following photos of me (and the scenery) from the top of the rail car.
Now today was interesting. Normally, they work a six-day week here, with Sunday off. So we, in the interests of getting the job done as fast as possible (and taking advantage of the paid vacation for whatever time is left on the contract when the job is finished), we only worked a half-day.
The second half of the day, however, we went back to the markado - and fortunately, my Spanish skills have improved since then. So I was able to stock up on some much-needed groceries and things for the upcoming weeks (lesson number one in living on a perdiem).
Todays lesson also has to do with language:
1) Thinking in English, listening in French, and talking in Spanish simultaneously is generally considered a bad idea, and will probably be doomed to failure.
And to close, the view from my hotel room, as the sun sinks beneath the horizon
And the mountains out my front window
So for the first time since I've been travelling this time, I haven't had to do much work. I eventually have a report to write, but that won't take too long. Furthermore, the surprising lack of sun in this purportedly tropical country came to a sudden and welcome end today, as we finally saw the clouds broke and the day turned absolutely beautiful. As promised, there are some pictures to add. Including the much-talked about view of the Pacific off my balcony at the hotel.
And the mountains out my front window
At present, most of my time is spent working in a companies rail yard, inspecting the rail tankers that they use to carry sulphuric acid. Overall, it's pretty straightforward work - most of the tanks suck, and I get to tell them why. Some of the tanks don't suck, and I also get to tell them why lol. However, the yard, like my hotel, borders on the pacific coast, and the view from the top of the rail cars is pretty good. Thanks, Yves, for taking the following photos of me (and the scenery) from the top of the rail car.
Now today was interesting. Normally, they work a six-day week here, with Sunday off. So we, in the interests of getting the job done as fast as possible (and taking advantage of the paid vacation for whatever time is left on the contract when the job is finished), we only worked a half-day.
The second half of the day, however, we went back to the markado - and fortunately, my Spanish skills have improved since then. So I was able to stock up on some much-needed groceries and things for the upcoming weeks (lesson number one in living on a perdiem).
Todays lessons also have to do with language:
1) Getting flirted with by hot foreign chicks is pretty cool when you're abroad. Knowing enough of their language to know they're flirting with you and not enough to know what they're actually saying or how to respond is less cool.
2) Thinking in English, listening in French, and talking in Spanish simultaneously is generally considered a bad idea.
At present, most of my time is spent working in a companies rail yard, inspecting the rail tankers that they use to carry sulphuric acid. Overall, it's pretty straightforward work - most of the tanks suck, and I get to tell them why. Some of the tanks don't suck, and I also get to tell them why lol. However, the yard, like my hotel, borders on the pacific coast, and the view from the top of the rail cars is pretty good. Thanks, Yves, for taking the following photos of me (and the scenery) from the top of the rail car.
Now today was interesting. Normally, they work a six-day week here, with Sunday off. So we, in the interests of getting the job done as fast as possible (and taking advantage of the paid vacation for whatever time is left on the contract when the job is finished), we only worked a half-day.
The second half of the day, however, we went back to the markado - and fortunately, my Spanish skills have improved since then. So I was able to stock up on some much-needed groceries and things for the upcoming weeks (lesson number one in living on a perdiem).
Todays lesson also has to do with language:
1) Thinking in English, listening in French, and talking in Spanish simultaneously is generally considered a bad idea, and will probably be doomed to failure.
And to close, the view from my hotel room, as the sun sinks beneath the horizon
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Another day, another airport
So I'm finally updating my blog with the start of my Peru trip. For the record this is not a vacation, it is, at the moment, a work trip - so how much "vacation-y" stuff shows up is still up for debate. But, let's start with the Peruvian basics.
1) In answer to any questions about Lima - the airport is an airport. The quality of an airport is inversely proportional to time spent travelling and the time spent in the airport. Lima's airport leaves, according to that formula, much to be desired. On the plus side - Starbucks doesn't close. On the downside, there isn't anyplace convenient to grab a nap on an extended layover.
2) Don't ask about the jungle - I haven't seen it. I'm working in a medium-sized city called Ilo. Ilo exists as a small oasis with the Pacific Ocean on one side, and the desert on the other. I will hopefully get to see jungle in my time here, and will post pictures accordingly.
3) The exchange rate here is NOT especially favourable (only 3:1) - however unless you happen to be going to Starbucks, food, drink, and lodging are all cheap - making it a pretty easy place to go on a budget and have a good time, if you're up for an adventure.
4) As a corollary to number three - be prepared to diet when you get home. The food here is plentiful, cheap (REALLY cheap), and excellent. Be warned, if you're not a seafood person, you could be in for a shock (and possible allergic reaction), as octopus, squid, crawfish, shrimp, clams, and lobster (we think) are the name of the game as far as local restaurants are concerned.
5) Make an effort to learn some Spanish before coming to visit - make everyone's lives easier. Markets (Markados) are a good place to practice your Spanish - some basic vocabulary required.
As it stands, I've done little that's actually noteworthy here other than work - which I do on a daily basis, my usual 8-10 hours a day. When that changes, there will be more stories. Photos will follow as they actually get taken.
1) In answer to any questions about Lima - the airport is an airport. The quality of an airport is inversely proportional to time spent travelling and the time spent in the airport. Lima's airport leaves, according to that formula, much to be desired. On the plus side - Starbucks doesn't close. On the downside, there isn't anyplace convenient to grab a nap on an extended layover.
2) Don't ask about the jungle - I haven't seen it. I'm working in a medium-sized city called Ilo. Ilo exists as a small oasis with the Pacific Ocean on one side, and the desert on the other. I will hopefully get to see jungle in my time here, and will post pictures accordingly.
3) The exchange rate here is NOT especially favourable (only 3:1) - however unless you happen to be going to Starbucks, food, drink, and lodging are all cheap - making it a pretty easy place to go on a budget and have a good time, if you're up for an adventure.
4) As a corollary to number three - be prepared to diet when you get home. The food here is plentiful, cheap (REALLY cheap), and excellent. Be warned, if you're not a seafood person, you could be in for a shock (and possible allergic reaction), as octopus, squid, crawfish, shrimp, clams, and lobster (we think) are the name of the game as far as local restaurants are concerned.
5) Make an effort to learn some Spanish before coming to visit - make everyone's lives easier. Markets (Markados) are a good place to practice your Spanish - some basic vocabulary required.
As it stands, I've done little that's actually noteworthy here other than work - which I do on a daily basis, my usual 8-10 hours a day. When that changes, there will be more stories. Photos will follow as they actually get taken.
Friday, August 8, 2008
A slight change
So this blog will, for the next few weeks (starting sometime on or around August 19th) take on a new look for a few weeks. As a few of you know, I will be leaving for a 3 week contract in Peru that day. As all of you can probably guess, I've never been there, and have every intention of seeing as much of the country as I can when I'm not working. Pictures, stories, and anything else that I figure will be interesting will be posted - whenever I get around to it. So keep reading - it'll be one hell of a ride.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Something that scares the shit out of even me
From the end of the World War II, the threat of nuclear arms has hung like a cloud over top of an uneasy world, the only thread of hope being the idea that none of the states actually possessing these weapons would actually risk the total annihilation not only of their own state, but of the entire globe, by using them. Unfortunately, as the number of states who have joined that club increased, the world has also been faced with certain, less - er... - rational players. Two specific players, however, have shown themselves to be decidedly less rational than others: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In light of recent progress of the Six-party Talks, we can look at the North Koreans in a somewhat new light, assignificant progress has been made in disarming them. While there are still potential challenges ahead, the future does, at least present a vestige of hope for peace on this front.
We then move to the other side of the nuclear coin - the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the past 20 years, amid protests that their only nuclear objectives are for civilian energy purposes, the Iranians have been moving slowly and inexorably towards the attainment of a nuclear bomb. Constant pressure from the international community has been met with abject refusal to comply with sanctions, or with deals that Iran is party to. For an extensive work on the subject, see "The Iran Threat: President Ahmedinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis", by Alireza Jafarzadeh. Today, in an article published in the Globe and Mail, we can see that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran has moved dramatically forward, with the production of 6,000 centrifuges for the production of enriched uranium, with the eventual goal of possessing 54,000 centrifuges.
So between the unquestionable pursuit of nuclear weapons, the decided antipathy to the United States and the rest of the western nations, and the well-known Iranian support of such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah amongst others, we are faced with three, all-important questions. First - would a nuclear armed Iran, as a state, use the threat or actual use of nuclear arms in conflict (de facto, or diplomatic) with another state? Second - would Iran, as a state sponsor of a number of terrorist organizations, give said organizations access to their nuclear arsenal? Third - if the answer to either of these questions is "yes", what should the west do to prevent this nightmare scenario from ever taking place?
In answer to the first question - we need to consider the actions of the Iranian government in the past. The easiest answer to this question comes with current threats of the Iranian government to "explode the Middle East" if the Americans, Israelis, or anyone else for that matter, decides to step in and remove the potential for a nuclear armed Iran through conventional means. While the use of armed force in self-defense is a legitimate response to an armed attack against your state - the threat of armed force against the national assets of not just the country that attacked yours, but also of your neighbours speaks to an uncommon willingness to protect a weapons program that is designed to do only one thing - wipe another country off the map. This willingness to harm even non-combatants in conflict speaks of nothing less than an unquestionably strong desire to attain such weapons - such a desire speaks only of a willingness to use them to achieve their own ends.
In answer to the second question, we need to consider the primary target of most of the Iranian-sponsored terrorists attacks, and the Iranian policy towards that state: namely, Israel. Ultimately, Iran's policy on Israel is that [Israel] does not have the right to exist, in any borders. The function of nuclear arms is singular - to wipe an offending state off the map. While there is no guarantee, obviously, that Iran would give it's sponsored terrorists nuclear technology, there is certainly no reason to believe that they wouldn't. In the case of such a threat as this, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and assume the answer to be "yes" until proven otherwise.
So we've answered the first two questions - now comes the hard part: what do we do about it. Unfortunately, Iran's threat to take down the Middle East oil supply to the United States and the west is very real, and must be taken seriously. So too, must the eventual threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Furthermore, we can see pretty clearly that diplomatic effots have failed. The only option left is military. So how does one engage military operations against a rogue state, holding economic catastrophe over the heads of those who must act, without levelling the nation and turning it to dust?
This last question, I will not give a direct answer to - I have no interest in posing the question of declaring war, or committing acts of war against a sovereign state in a public forum online. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Iran must be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons at all costs, and that the only method, at this time, that would be effective in that prevention is through the use of armed force. The west knows what it necessary, and the time to act is now.
In light of recent progress of the Six-party Talks, we can look at the North Koreans in a somewhat new light, assignificant progress has been made in disarming them. While there are still potential challenges ahead, the future does, at least present a vestige of hope for peace on this front.
We then move to the other side of the nuclear coin - the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the past 20 years, amid protests that their only nuclear objectives are for civilian energy purposes, the Iranians have been moving slowly and inexorably towards the attainment of a nuclear bomb. Constant pressure from the international community has been met with abject refusal to comply with sanctions, or with deals that Iran is party to. For an extensive work on the subject, see "The Iran Threat: President Ahmedinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis", by Alireza Jafarzadeh. Today, in an article published in the Globe and Mail, we can see that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran has moved dramatically forward, with the production of 6,000 centrifuges for the production of enriched uranium, with the eventual goal of possessing 54,000 centrifuges.
So between the unquestionable pursuit of nuclear weapons, the decided antipathy to the United States and the rest of the western nations, and the well-known Iranian support of such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah amongst others, we are faced with three, all-important questions. First - would a nuclear armed Iran, as a state, use the threat or actual use of nuclear arms in conflict (de facto, or diplomatic) with another state? Second - would Iran, as a state sponsor of a number of terrorist organizations, give said organizations access to their nuclear arsenal? Third - if the answer to either of these questions is "yes", what should the west do to prevent this nightmare scenario from ever taking place?
In answer to the first question - we need to consider the actions of the Iranian government in the past. The easiest answer to this question comes with current threats of the Iranian government to "explode the Middle East" if the Americans, Israelis, or anyone else for that matter, decides to step in and remove the potential for a nuclear armed Iran through conventional means. While the use of armed force in self-defense is a legitimate response to an armed attack against your state - the threat of armed force against the national assets of not just the country that attacked yours, but also of your neighbours speaks to an uncommon willingness to protect a weapons program that is designed to do only one thing - wipe another country off the map. This willingness to harm even non-combatants in conflict speaks of nothing less than an unquestionably strong desire to attain such weapons - such a desire speaks only of a willingness to use them to achieve their own ends.
In answer to the second question, we need to consider the primary target of most of the Iranian-sponsored terrorists attacks, and the Iranian policy towards that state: namely, Israel. Ultimately, Iran's policy on Israel is that [Israel] does not have the right to exist, in any borders. The function of nuclear arms is singular - to wipe an offending state off the map. While there is no guarantee, obviously, that Iran would give it's sponsored terrorists nuclear technology, there is certainly no reason to believe that they wouldn't. In the case of such a threat as this, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and assume the answer to be "yes" until proven otherwise.
So we've answered the first two questions - now comes the hard part: what do we do about it. Unfortunately, Iran's threat to take down the Middle East oil supply to the United States and the west is very real, and must be taken seriously. So too, must the eventual threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Furthermore, we can see pretty clearly that diplomatic effots have failed. The only option left is military. So how does one engage military operations against a rogue state, holding economic catastrophe over the heads of those who must act, without levelling the nation and turning it to dust?
This last question, I will not give a direct answer to - I have no interest in posing the question of declaring war, or committing acts of war against a sovereign state in a public forum online. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Iran must be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons at all costs, and that the only method, at this time, that would be effective in that prevention is through the use of armed force. The west knows what it necessary, and the time to act is now.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
A better idea
So somehow, we need to combat rising energy costs, encourage economic growth, and encourage our industries to go green (or at very least, green-ER), and we need to do all of this pretty much simultaneously. After lambasting Stephane Dion's proposed carbon tax as rather a bad idea for reasons pertaining to the first two, I promised an answer. It's time to deliver on that.
To begin, let's look at why bother going green in out industries. Bluntly, there are two reasons - the first is international pressure from a number of parties, including the European Union and, more recently, the United States to go green in our industries, particularily as pertains our exploitation of the oilsands.
The second reason has more to do with domestic quality of living - ultimately, whether you believe in global warming or not, and whether you're especially concerned about the question of global climate change or not (and opinions vary), anyone who's see the skyline around Hamilton, Toronto, and many of our other heavy industrial/commercial centres has seen the brown haze that slowly descends upon the respective cities. Ultimately, the quality of our air and water supplies, notably in heavily industrialized areas, is sinking badly. This in turn has a negative impact on our health - again, something to be avoided.
Thirdly, rising energy costs are taking their toll on all sectors of our economy and directly affecting our cost of living across the board. Reduction in our use of fossil fuels would help to reduce our overall costs at this point, presenting yet another benefit.
dro
How do we do this, and still keep a profit? First off, let's do something about taxes that was suggested by my friend Jason in reply to my last post. Let's give tax cuts to greener companies - perhaps even going so far as to give a tax credit to companies who show a proportional reduction in overall greenhouse gas output - as well as improving funding for research into green and non-fossil fuel based energy sources. Further, as I've said before, we need to put forward a dramatic shift in our national energy production platform from coal/oil/gas fired power plants towards a higher reliance on hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Ultimately, the international demand for fossil fuels will, eventually, reduce as the first world nations move towards a greener industrial future, and as emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil will inevitably do the same. At that point, the market cost of oil will make it no longer profitable to work the oil sands - costing jobs, money, and potentially causing many of our skilled workers to leave the country for greener pastures. That said, that time is not upon us yet. As we move to eliminate our country's dependance on fossil fuels, we need to recognize that many of these emerging economies are both oil-dependant, and that their needs will continue to increase for quite some time. We need to work to meet those needs, and we need to do so for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is the simple economic question. We ramp up production of our oil and start selling it - irrelevant of where it goes - and we're going to make a profit. The companies that are building multi-billion dollar plants will continue to build, expand, and employ, and petro-dollars will roll in from around the globe - producing increased taxation revenue from abroad. Further, as I said, there will eventually come a time when world dependance on oil will end - at that point, the oil sands will go from being worth potentially billions of dollars, to being worth a fraction of that. Quite frankly, it would make more sense to pull as much of the stuff out of the ground and make as much money on it as we can while it is still profitable to do so. Thirdly is a question of foreign affairs. Right now, many players in OPEC are, at best ambivalent towards and at worst downright antagonistic to western interests. Short version to a long story is that petrodollars in Canada's pocket that are taken away from the pockets of some of these other nations are a decidedly beneficial thing from our Foreign Minister's office's perspective.
Anyhow, short version of this is that we move towards a greener Canada through a combination of R&D, tax incentives, and a shift in energy policy at the same time as engaging in aggressive exploitation of our oil reserves to use for export. Just because we're trying to go green doesn't mean that we have to force everyone else to, and certainly doesn't mean that we can't still try to force a profit off the fact that everyone else isn't going to just yet.
To begin, let's look at why bother going green in out industries. Bluntly, there are two reasons - the first is international pressure from a number of parties, including the European Union and, more recently, the United States to go green in our industries, particularily as pertains our exploitation of the oilsands.
The second reason has more to do with domestic quality of living - ultimately, whether you believe in global warming or not, and whether you're especially concerned about the question of global climate change or not (and opinions vary), anyone who's see the skyline around Hamilton, Toronto, and many of our other heavy industrial/commercial centres has seen the brown haze that slowly descends upon the respective cities. Ultimately, the quality of our air and water supplies, notably in heavily industrialized areas, is sinking badly. This in turn has a negative impact on our health - again, something to be avoided.
Thirdly, rising energy costs are taking their toll on all sectors of our economy and directly affecting our cost of living across the board. Reduction in our use of fossil fuels would help to reduce our overall costs at this point, presenting yet another benefit.
dro
How do we do this, and still keep a profit? First off, let's do something about taxes that was suggested by my friend Jason in reply to my last post. Let's give tax cuts to greener companies - perhaps even going so far as to give a tax credit to companies who show a proportional reduction in overall greenhouse gas output - as well as improving funding for research into green and non-fossil fuel based energy sources. Further, as I've said before, we need to put forward a dramatic shift in our national energy production platform from coal/oil/gas fired power plants towards a higher reliance on hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Ultimately, the international demand for fossil fuels will, eventually, reduce as the first world nations move towards a greener industrial future, and as emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil will inevitably do the same. At that point, the market cost of oil will make it no longer profitable to work the oil sands - costing jobs, money, and potentially causing many of our skilled workers to leave the country for greener pastures. That said, that time is not upon us yet. As we move to eliminate our country's dependance on fossil fuels, we need to recognize that many of these emerging economies are both oil-dependant, and that their needs will continue to increase for quite some time. We need to work to meet those needs, and we need to do so for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is the simple economic question. We ramp up production of our oil and start selling it - irrelevant of where it goes - and we're going to make a profit. The companies that are building multi-billion dollar plants will continue to build, expand, and employ, and petro-dollars will roll in from around the globe - producing increased taxation revenue from abroad. Further, as I said, there will eventually come a time when world dependance on oil will end - at that point, the oil sands will go from being worth potentially billions of dollars, to being worth a fraction of that. Quite frankly, it would make more sense to pull as much of the stuff out of the ground and make as much money on it as we can while it is still profitable to do so. Thirdly is a question of foreign affairs. Right now, many players in OPEC are, at best ambivalent towards and at worst downright antagonistic to western interests. Short version to a long story is that petrodollars in Canada's pocket that are taken away from the pockets of some of these other nations are a decidedly beneficial thing from our Foreign Minister's office's perspective.
Anyhow, short version of this is that we move towards a greener Canada through a combination of R&D, tax incentives, and a shift in energy policy at the same time as engaging in aggressive exploitation of our oil reserves to use for export. Just because we're trying to go green doesn't mean that we have to force everyone else to, and certainly doesn't mean that we can't still try to force a profit off the fact that everyone else isn't going to just yet.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
A bad idea, couched in good rhetoric, is still a bad idea
So as another election looks to be unfolding around the corner, the Liberal Party of Canada has unleashed yet another bad idea - it's actually kind of funny how often this happens - and has done (as usual) an impeccable job of hiding behind truly impressive (and, at times staggering) verbiage. Verbiage designed to defend why, exactly, we should pay more tax and suffer an increased cost of living when energy prices are skyrocketing, and our economy is facing a significant risk as a result of the effects of the weak American Dollar on Canadian manufacturing, commercial interests, and tourism. Verbiage designed to couch the risks in enacting such a plan behind words like "daring" and "bold" - when words like "foolhardy" and "stupid" seem more apt to me.
So, before I start to take apart the Liberals new taxation strategy for you, let's get a couple of things underway. First of all, we're going to take as given that the climate change issue has been, once and for all, settled. We're going to take as given that greenhouse gases are causing untold amounts of damage to the environment and that we need to (as a globe) reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further damage. We're taking these as givens not because they're necessarily true, but because they're necessary premises to be able to reasonably debate this policy shift. There are lots of debates around the internet with varying degrees of scientific complexity on this question that you can browse at your leisure.
Second: we are going to assume that what Liberal leader Stephane Dion has said he will do if elected (in this context) is what he will ACTUALLY do. Obviously, it's impossible to debate the merits of a politicians promise if you assume that all or part of the promise is a lie.
Third and lastly - I have read the official Liberal Party documentation on their new policy. Yes, this is mostly rhetoric, but it does outline the basics of the new plan. I suggest you do the same by clicking here.
So let's consider "the plan". Essentially, how the Green Shift works (according to Liberal propagandists) is to put a noticable, measurable, and increasing direct tax on carbon emissions through the taxation of fossil fuels, beginning in year 1 with a $10/tonne tax on carbon emissions and raising steadily to $40/tonne by the end of the fourth year. (see p. 28 of previous link) This additional tax will be directly returned to Canadians and Canadian business through a series of tax cuts. (see p. 36 for total dollar value of "tax cuts and other benefits", and see p. 42 for a rough budget showing the taxation structure change to be "revenue neutral").
The purpose of this new taxation strategy is "shift Canada's taxation strategy away from income and towards pollution in a revenue-neutral way", and to put a price on carbon to "spur industry to pollute less". This would create "a new demand in Canada for green products and technologies". The oncoming taxation reductions would seek to reduce basic tax rates of the three lowest income brackets by ten, five, and four precent, respectively, with the particular goal "to help low-income Canadians". As well, the new plan seeks to "accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts", "accelerate the capital cost allowance rates for investments in green technologies", and make the Science, Research & Experimental Development Tax credit 25% refundable - making it more attractive to business to invest in green technology in the present.
Actually, when I present it this way, it really looks, on the surface, like a decent idea. So why am I sitting here criticizing it? Unfortunately, the Liberal party policymakers are very good at writing, and very bad at mathematics. The basic considerations show that the Green Shift is indeed revenue neutral - in the short term, from the government's perspective. So let's look at the problems.
There are two issues with this platform that raise alarms with me - the first is the concept of increasing taxation on a decreasing resource (aka: pollution). Unlike other federal "sin taxes," the proposed new carbon tax will be specifically designed to drastically reduce overall carbon emissions - the source of the tax. At the same time, income taxes will be being cut to make the plan, in the short term, revenue neutral. However, as the sum of our carbon emissions as a nation reduces, our government's overall revenue will reduce. This change in revenue source will, when the policy is extended from 4 years and continuing to a longer cycle, no longer be neutral. This shift in taxation policy is a multi-billion dollar deficit in the making. Unfortunately, that has long been the platform of Liberal governments in this country - spend now, change now, and we'll leave the consequences to someone else. In this case, those consequences will be left to the Canadian taxpayer - the very working and middle classes that this platform shift will allegedly "help".
The second issue that I see is the term "revenue neutral". I ask "revenue neutral FOR WHOM?" Perhaps what Liberal policymakers neglect to remember (or comment to) is that there is more to calculating a Canadian's cost of living than simply taxation increases. What the Liberal's attempts to buy our countrymen off with simple tax cuts fail to appreciate is the fact that, definitionally, the proposed taxation shift from income to pollution (essentially from income to production) is, of necessity, inflationary. Unfortunately, as much as this new taxation strategy is designed to shift our economy towards a greener future, economies are large, bulky, and notoriously slow to change direction. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will a new, green economy in this country. In the time it takes for this proposed "new economy" to be forged, every stage of the production chain - raw materials exploitation, processing, to final manufacturing and sales - in this country will see an increase in taxation. The cost of those taxes will, in every case, be filtered down to the consumer, resulting in an increased cost of living for the average working Canadian. As this cost filters downwards, there will be a significant push for higher wages amongst the working and middle classes to make up for this increase in cost of living - which will further increase the cost of domestic goods in this country and repeat the process - until a newer, much more expensive status quo is reached. This calculus will actually be slightly higher when directly applied to the fossil-fuel industry itself (ie: gas costs, aviation/transport costs, etc.) Save the taxpayers money? On taxes certainly, but a lower taxation rate is a high price to pay for a hugely increased cost of living.
This new taxation strategy may be politically expedient - designed to appeal to a population where "green" is the new black, but where an understanding of the economic ramifications of such a plan are sorely misunderstood. I can only hope that, come election day, the people of this country band together to reject good politics in the name of a sound, actionable strategy, a strategy that sees investment in green technology and a shift towards a greener future in this country that doesn't come at such a high cost to taxpayers and to our economy. Check back after this weekend and I will present a different strategy, designed to meet tomorrow's need of a greener Canada with todays need to counteract rising energy prices, a too strong dollar, and rising costs of living for the average Canadian taxpayer. I'll present a strategy that makes sense.
So, before I start to take apart the Liberals new taxation strategy for you, let's get a couple of things underway. First of all, we're going to take as given that the climate change issue has been, once and for all, settled. We're going to take as given that greenhouse gases are causing untold amounts of damage to the environment and that we need to (as a globe) reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further damage. We're taking these as givens not because they're necessarily true, but because they're necessary premises to be able to reasonably debate this policy shift. There are lots of debates around the internet with varying degrees of scientific complexity on this question that you can browse at your leisure.
Second: we are going to assume that what Liberal leader Stephane Dion has said he will do if elected (in this context) is what he will ACTUALLY do. Obviously, it's impossible to debate the merits of a politicians promise if you assume that all or part of the promise is a lie.
Third and lastly - I have read the official Liberal Party documentation on their new policy. Yes, this is mostly rhetoric, but it does outline the basics of the new plan. I suggest you do the same by clicking here.
So let's consider "the plan". Essentially, how the Green Shift works (according to Liberal propagandists) is to put a noticable, measurable, and increasing direct tax on carbon emissions through the taxation of fossil fuels, beginning in year 1 with a $10/tonne tax on carbon emissions and raising steadily to $40/tonne by the end of the fourth year. (see p. 28 of previous link) This additional tax will be directly returned to Canadians and Canadian business through a series of tax cuts. (see p. 36 for total dollar value of "tax cuts and other benefits", and see p. 42 for a rough budget showing the taxation structure change to be "revenue neutral").
The purpose of this new taxation strategy is "shift Canada's taxation strategy away from income and towards pollution in a revenue-neutral way", and to put a price on carbon to "spur industry to pollute less". This would create "a new demand in Canada for green products and technologies". The oncoming taxation reductions would seek to reduce basic tax rates of the three lowest income brackets by ten, five, and four precent, respectively, with the particular goal "to help low-income Canadians". As well, the new plan seeks to "accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts", "accelerate the capital cost allowance rates for investments in green technologies", and make the Science, Research & Experimental Development Tax credit 25% refundable - making it more attractive to business to invest in green technology in the present.
Actually, when I present it this way, it really looks, on the surface, like a decent idea. So why am I sitting here criticizing it? Unfortunately, the Liberal party policymakers are very good at writing, and very bad at mathematics. The basic considerations show that the Green Shift is indeed revenue neutral - in the short term, from the government's perspective. So let's look at the problems.
There are two issues with this platform that raise alarms with me - the first is the concept of increasing taxation on a decreasing resource (aka: pollution). Unlike other federal "sin taxes," the proposed new carbon tax will be specifically designed to drastically reduce overall carbon emissions - the source of the tax. At the same time, income taxes will be being cut to make the plan, in the short term, revenue neutral. However, as the sum of our carbon emissions as a nation reduces, our government's overall revenue will reduce. This change in revenue source will, when the policy is extended from 4 years and continuing to a longer cycle, no longer be neutral. This shift in taxation policy is a multi-billion dollar deficit in the making. Unfortunately, that has long been the platform of Liberal governments in this country - spend now, change now, and we'll leave the consequences to someone else. In this case, those consequences will be left to the Canadian taxpayer - the very working and middle classes that this platform shift will allegedly "help".
The second issue that I see is the term "revenue neutral". I ask "revenue neutral FOR WHOM?" Perhaps what Liberal policymakers neglect to remember (or comment to) is that there is more to calculating a Canadian's cost of living than simply taxation increases. What the Liberal's attempts to buy our countrymen off with simple tax cuts fail to appreciate is the fact that, definitionally, the proposed taxation shift from income to pollution (essentially from income to production) is, of necessity, inflationary. Unfortunately, as much as this new taxation strategy is designed to shift our economy towards a greener future, economies are large, bulky, and notoriously slow to change direction. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will a new, green economy in this country. In the time it takes for this proposed "new economy" to be forged, every stage of the production chain - raw materials exploitation, processing, to final manufacturing and sales - in this country will see an increase in taxation. The cost of those taxes will, in every case, be filtered down to the consumer, resulting in an increased cost of living for the average working Canadian. As this cost filters downwards, there will be a significant push for higher wages amongst the working and middle classes to make up for this increase in cost of living - which will further increase the cost of domestic goods in this country and repeat the process - until a newer, much more expensive status quo is reached. This calculus will actually be slightly higher when directly applied to the fossil-fuel industry itself (ie: gas costs, aviation/transport costs, etc.) Save the taxpayers money? On taxes certainly, but a lower taxation rate is a high price to pay for a hugely increased cost of living.
This new taxation strategy may be politically expedient - designed to appeal to a population where "green" is the new black, but where an understanding of the economic ramifications of such a plan are sorely misunderstood. I can only hope that, come election day, the people of this country band together to reject good politics in the name of a sound, actionable strategy, a strategy that sees investment in green technology and a shift towards a greener future in this country that doesn't come at such a high cost to taxpayers and to our economy. Check back after this weekend and I will present a different strategy, designed to meet tomorrow's need of a greener Canada with todays need to counteract rising energy prices, a too strong dollar, and rising costs of living for the average Canadian taxpayer. I'll present a strategy that makes sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
