10 responses to “Tory platform’s dirty secret – my latest Economy Lab post”

  1. David Wilson

    17% below 2005 GHG levels is ~6% below 1990 levels (is that right?)
    the Green Party calls for 30% below 1990 levels by 2020
    Lester Brown calls for 80% below 2006 levels by 2020
    what is that on a 1990 baseline? …

    and your article is in gigatonnes (is a gigatonne the same as a gigaton?)

    do you see my problem Andrew?

  2. Rick Hoff

    Andrew – do you think for one nanosecond that any government is going to be able to meet these targets without destroying the country’s standard of living? The voting majority will march off a cliff before they will support the measures we’d have to take.

    We need to be pragmatic about this – we have a developed world poised on the edge of sudden increases in interest rates to battle an inflation genie that might be out of the bottle, a Greek default that will spread like contagion to the rest of the PIIGS, and a failing US economy. There’s a reason the environment is at the bottom of the priority list this election.

  3. Rick Hoff

    It’s my opinion that every party HAS to talk about targets because the other parties do. In the case of the NDP, without a doubt any plan is 100% about funding rampant spending growth. I’m not sure about the Liberals – some of it is about raising revenues – but I think like the Tories they realize Canada cannot plow off on it’s own and burden it’s economy without knowing exactly what the US is going to do.

    I think a very strong case can be made that the biggest issue in the minds of US voters right now is unemployment. With the US dollar plumbing new lows every day, the global supply chain badly damaged in Japan, and inflation forcing up Chinese wages, there’s a very good possibility that manufacturing could make some sort of a return to the US. Do you think that any president in his right mind would choke off a possible resurgence in American job growth by raising the cost of doing business through carbon taxes?

    So if that scenario plays out, what would be the effect on the Canadian economy should we already be committed to non competitive cap and trade? Undoubtedly the US would love that – they could use a stooge like Jack Layton in the PM office to ensure that we’d supply them with raw materials, probably at a discount to world pricing via some bogus environmental levy, but at the same time burdening our business sector so that it didn’t present a competitive threat to US interests.

    The stakes are so enormous, and the opportunity for malinvestment so high – the biggest sucker bet this country has ever seen is out there for the taking.

  4. David Wilson

    a disappointing response Andrew (to me) … seems (to me) that the general ability to compare apples with apples is impaired, but you apparently don’t see it like that (?)

    here we have an issue of central importance, and the pundits use different baselines & units, and I (at least) cannot find a dependable conversion … so … count me out of the discussion I guess …

Leave a Reply