[Bruce_the_vii]

I had a policy idea for the Ignatieff Liberals today. I note that the Liberals are talking up climate change which is too bad because they are going to throw money at it to no effect. What they should do is introduce a very small Carbon tax, ½% on consumption of hydrocarbons which would raise $1 billion but then turn around and spend the money on research and development. The world is facing more problems than CO2, there’s going to be resource and population pressure, and we should be working on break through technologies at this time. That’d be world resource research and development: genetic engineering, breeder reactors, ocean mining and what have you. It’s broader than just energy. These technologies have a constituency, are popular, and fixing CO2 is all talk by comparison. So a research fund; call it the Canadian Approach.

[andyt]

After Dion, carbon taxes are dead federally, so I don't think this would do Iggy any good. It's a good idea, because reducing carbon emissions is about more than GHG's. Think of all the problems cars cause, for instance. More efficient home heating couldn't hurt either. One problem I see with the BC carbon tax, is that it's not applied to exports. So we send our coal to China with no carbon tax on it, so they can spew it out and make cheap crap to sell back to us. All that cheap crap should also have a carbon tax on it.

But I actually support Harper in the idea of doing nothing until the US figures out what it will do, then going along with that. If we have clashing systems, it will just add to the trade problems. I think the whole AGW situation is so confused (at least I am) that doing nothing much is the way to go right now.

I agree tho that research is important. That Danish statistician enviro-skeptic (forget his name) makes the point that investing in new energy tech would have a much bigger bang for the buck in reducing GHG's than trying to reduce emissions from old energy sources, with far less economic downside.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The carbon tax I propose is $30 a person a year but would provide substantial research funds. The provinces, world governments are spending on carbon and this is a very cheap curve ball. So it's political.

I would think your Danish statistians makes sense, spending on energy wise technology saves more than trying to affect the cost of carbon use with taxes.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Not much interest here a CKA on this post, some comment about the resource and population pressures facing the next generation. This is really the next Frontier, and it's going to be wild. Getting through the world population malstorm that's just around the corner.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Hon. Ken Dryden, MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6



Dear MP Dryden:

I write to you as I have the political solution to the Global Warming problem. Or at least I have the solution to Michael Ignatieff’s problem that he’s talked up expectations of expensive Liberal promises in this regard.

The solution is to actually hike the discussion to the bigger and more important concern of the coming world resource shortage and population pressure, call it the 21st Century Challenge. Our problem is not just climate change rather it includes dwindling non-renewable resources, energy, food, population pressure and the environment at once. My idea is to indeed jump on the climate change bandwagon and introduce a hydrocarbon tax but then to cross over to the wider concern of resources and spend the money on “a world resource research fund”. The research would be on genetic engineering, breeder reactor designs, ocean mining and what have you – the range possible is very broad. The extra tax would only be small, 0.5% or so on final consumption of hydrocarbons. This might yield a $1 billion in revenues. At a billion dollars the cost is only $30 per person annually but the R & D is significant. The $30 should be do-able even in a recession recovery phase in the economy. This is a cost effective way of doing something about all the talk about the world’s climate and the planets future that is politically practical.

The coming resource and population problem is extremely serious and rather a lot of Canadians are wondering about it. There’s general awareness about world resources and population pressure are going to affecting one’s immediate descendants. It’s a Mother’s Milk issue. In fact people around the world are ahead of governments on this. The world governments are almost exclusively focused on the CO2 aspect of it but they will not be able to do much about this. You’d get more bang for you buck with basic research than by attempting to control the uses of hydrocarbons with taxes and subsidies. With basic research you might get something for the tax payer’s money.

The areas of technical concern are broad and you’d expect advances on a wide front. As there are more good ideas around than with just energy you would expect more breakthrough technologies to emerge. The changing price structure of resources will open the window on new ideas.

The research approach would appeal to many segments of society, politically. Besides the popular concern with climate there are energy buffs and environment enthusiasts. New inventions are still very popular with the general public, fascinate, although modern research and development has the reputation of experts featherbedding.

The government should do the spade work now so solutions are proven when called upon.

There is the industry and jobs creation aspect as well. The jobs aspect of new inventions is difficult to capture, they tend to be distributed around the world by our Global Economy. The major point should remain the efficiencies and cost savings from buying and using the new technology.

There are different CO2 taxes and subsidies in Canada already. These will be entirely ineffective. If the R & D plan went swimmingly and creative, sound and popular projects emerged then the other CO2 initiatives could be abandoned. In this way the R & D initiative could save the taxpayer money in the short run.

If Michael Ignatieff wants to do something “very intelligent” he should pitch this curve ball about the future problems of the planet to the world. He could challenge the rest of the world to match the $30 per person a year to the problem. This would be more practical and popular than trying to modify the planet’s climate. It could be touted as an affordable solution to climate change and world resources problems. You could call this limited carbon tax “The Canadian Approach”.

The $30 a person on a rich country basis would be $30 billion annually, which is a lot of engineering. If it got hot you could go to $60. You could then subsidize world wide birth control, energy conservation and also alternate energy. Eventually potash fertilizer is going to be a coffee.

Michael Ignatieff should take this up and also listen to his MP more, of course.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I have some other cost effective ideas for Ignatieff.


To throw some money at the Doctor shortage. This problem has been with us for over a decade. You should even do it while there is a deficit. It would appeal to conservative, rural areas where the doctor shortage is vexing.

To train more dentists. Dentists are higher paid than MDs and dental work is prohibitively expensive. The Dentists might be singled out for having it too easy.

Do an expensive study of the training to job supply of professional and skilled workers. This is particularly as there will be mass retirement of baby boomers shortly and we should put some numbers to the "opportunities" here.

Not to sell the CANDU. Rather this should be supported more long term. Nuclear is going to be very important as the price of oil escalates.

To cut immigration until the rest of Canada posts Alberta levels of employment. In particular this will drive up the defacto minimum wage and cut poverty. More people working is a source of revenues for the government, a major source.

I contend there is civil disobedience here in Canada over the low wage problem. It's quiet and I report it as things I hear. It includes contraband confidential information which the police are complicit with diseminating. So it's politicalization of the police. Surfacing this, which is posible, would end the Conservative pretences to clean government.

So I have some cost effective ideas. I don't think Ignatieff is actually sitting down with his caucus and saying what can we do given the deficit. I have letters from senior MPs that directly hint he just doesn't listen.

[ASLplease]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

.... These technologies have a constituency, are popular, and fixing CO2 is all talk by comparison. So a research fund; call it the Canadian Approach.

a fund that invests in technologies? its called the Alberta Heritage Fund.

Too bad that Ottawa doesn't know how to manage the surplus funds coming out of Alberta and (until recently) Ontario, because instead of creating a Canadian Heritage fund, they pissed it away.

[Curtman]

andyt wrote:

After Dion, carbon taxes are dead federally, so I don't think this would do Iggy any good.

Harper can't rule out carbon tax

We will have some form of carbon tax, it's only a matter of time.

[EyeBrock]

I have a policy idea for Iggy.

Try having a policy. People might know what you stand for if you had at least one.

A reminder, just slagging off the government and having wankers like McCallum, Coderre and Dosanj comment isn’t having a policy.

[ShepherdsDog]

Their comments will come back and bite them in the ass, especially that drunk McCallum.

[Bruce_the_vii]

McCallum wrote a piece for the Toronto Sun and his solution to deficit spending was spend to create "green jobs". Top economist in the country and that is his best shot.

I heard this joke about McCallum. Ignatieff said that Harper missed the fact there was a world recession and then grossly underestimated the deficit so he had no confidence in the government. This was last September and you'll recall he was ready to go to an election. On his side he had, er, McCallum's expertise. This political situation in the country can be captured in a one word pun, Mc-Call-um.