Phendrana Drifts

I'm oddly drawn to the Liberal Green Shift policy. I blogged about it previously and on the eve of a possible federal election Stéphane Dion has announced some additional ~~vote-buying strategies~~ policy changes to the policy.

The Liberals have announced $900 million in funds to help and re-announcing $1.7 billion (over four years, $600 million annually by year four) for a capital cost allowance for green investment. Curiously of the $900 million in new funds is stated to be a part of the original plan. "As part of the Liberal green shift plan, $400 million over four years will be allocated for Emissions Reduction Credits. The credits will be delivered as refundable tax credits, meaning that farmers and forestry companies will get credits for emissions reduction regardless of income." I'm worried I missing something as in the original plan the words "Emissions Reduction Credits" don't appear together once. The closest thing I can find is the Green Rural Credit, but that is a substantially larger planned program than $400 million ($749 in year four alone).

Just as interesting is the $500 million in additional spending. It ends the claim that the Green Shift is neutral, as it will now at least cost $500 million in the bottom line and the last I looked $500 million is not just a lot of money, but is also coming from a decreasing surplus (even deficit, depending on how the government finances go).

Still, I'm happy the Liberals are releasing policy. And I'm looking forward to seeing other parties' platforms and policy as the campaign rolls out. Read the Green Shift here, and look at yesterday's news release here.

Labels: climate change, environment, federal politics

Before I dissect the Liberal policy announcement today I would like to first say kudos to the opposition for actually introducing genuine, honest-to-blog policy. It is well-costed out, it presents its values front and centre and it does not resort to using vague promises of cost-savings from other departments or something otherwise disingenuous to tell people how to pay for it. It is a large carbon tax that will in turn pay for a income tax cut and a serious of other income-supplement programs. Good on them.

However, it is not a simple tax shift. And while I remain a fan of consumption taxes over income taxes, Dion and the Liberals miss a piece of basic math. An income tax cut plus new programs in exchange for a new tax is not a simple shift. Of the $15 billion policy, only $6.7 billion is an income tax cut and $3.3 billion is a corporate tax cut (and actually $500 million of that is lost revenue because the Liberals must be assuming that corporations will produce less profit and therefore pay less taxes). Of the remainder, $4.5 billion is new social spending. Given that the income tax cuts are weighted heavily to the lower end of the income scale as is the majority of the "Benefits for Working Families and Canadians" this new policy in fact is not a tax shift, but a state transfer of wealth from corporations and wealthy Canadians to poorer Canadians. Who will pay for this policy? It isn't polluters - it is the rich. Not that I have a problem with that - I mean I have strong opinions on economics and faith in the free market - but let's not gloss over the fact that is a tax and spend program, not a neutral policy meant to discourage polluting.

On the topic of discouraging polluting (which I'm not 100% convinced it will do), the policy doesn't seem to plan on success. $15.3 billion of revenue at $40 per tonne - what if there are less tonnes? I mean, that's fantastic and wonderful but how are we going to pay for all those cool new tax cuts and Liberal spending promises? I'm just saying...

Like the majority of the critics I think the price increases we are going to see will be far deeper and will be compounded by the fact that the things that will increase most in price as a result of the "green shift": fuel, energy, consumer goods, FOOD are all things whose price is escalating from other global pressures. The price of imported food is about to go through the roof and in a country where the diesel to transport that food will have an additional $0.07 a litre charge on the fuel that drives it to Safeway it is going to be even worse. I also can't imagine this is making the 2,000 laid off workers from Air Canada or the soon-to-be-former employees of GM in Oshawa feel any better about their plight, knowing that hundreds if not thousands more will be joining them.

I really want to like this policy more. I want to reward a political party - particularly one that does not have access to the vast bureaucracy of economists, policy analyists, lawyers and engineers that the government has - for a policy that honestly will probably see me better off and tries to tackle the problem of climate change. But Dion needs to do better to win the election. This policy is difficult politics that is going to need one heck of a salesperson and communicator to get Canadians on-side. As of yet, Dion has not proven to be that kind of guy.

Labels: climate change, federal politics

I awoke this morning to find a blizzard. Given that it is now April 6, I was not planning on finding any blizzards until around November. But sure enough, the "flurries" outside my door this morning involve buckets and buckets of snow. -4°C isn't that cold, but the snow - I am dumbstruck. And now I have decreed I shall be homebound, despite having a couple of places to go at some point this weekend. My mind had already begun moving to spring and all that implies.

Labels: climate change, inane

A rare day, a day when the Don Braid and Graham Thompson, the resident provincial political scribes at the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal both decide to heap praise on Premier Ed Stelmach. Thompson's headline isn't the best, "Climate talks let Stelmach off hook" but in his column he does write: "It was such a good day for Stelmach that he happily joined conference host, New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham, for a news conference after the premiers ended their Thursday sessions."

Braid's column was much more complimentary, with the headline "Ed plays his cards right Down East." As Braid rightfully points out, Stelmach's government has actually done something about greenhouse gas emissions. A $15 per tonne of emission tax is a great idea. That money is going to go into a fund to find new energy technologies. Does it provide an incentive to a heavy polluter to reduce their pollution? Yep. Does it help find the technology that will ultimately be necessary to meet reduction targets? Yep. Will it damage the economy? Not likely. Is it perfect? Far, far from it. We still need far more action, but as my post yesterday stated, and my opinion for years has been, the action that needs to be taken is from you.

Regardless of what the outcome is from the Council of the Federation, it would seem we have a Premier prepared to protect our interests at the national level while not coming across as a goofball or a redneck. Good job Premier.

Labels: alberta politics, climate change

So obviously I didn't keep up and blog when I said I would. I still lack a good excuse, but I'll provide some content.

First, the headline in today's U of A Gateway was " Powerplant plan promises fewer losses" which struck me the same way "New Iraq plan promises fewer American deaths".

Second, I'm watching with earnest as the Council of the Federation tries to tackle climate change. I'm shocked, as I often am when the developed world tries to deal with this problem, that consumer and individual choice remains off the radar when discussing climate change. I still firmly hold that this problem will not be solved by government and industry, but average citizens. You want to help stop climate change? Get rid of your car or at least take the bus to work. Want to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions? Reduce yours. And encourage your neighbours to do it to. Want politicans who have the courage to do something about CO2? Well, they need to have the courage to tell every citizen that they have to reduce their carbon footprint - that kind of message isn't one easily made in a democracy.

Third... I'm going to Toronto - thoughts on what I should do while I'm there? I think we're going to a Blue Jays game - I've never been to MLB game. Should be good.

Labels: climate change, iraq, toronto

Twitter Updates