So the Liberals want an election again? Must be an even day of the month…
Still, Don Martin reveals some ideas that the Official Abstinence wants to put in their *winning* campaign platform:
Well, insiders say they’ll include a scaled-down version of MPDan McTeague’s registered education savings scheme into a platform featuring pledges to fight homelessness, bolster infrastructure, act for a greener environment and bail out the auto sector, all allegedly without running a deficit.
Did your read that? “… act for a greener environment and bail out the auto sector…”. The Liberals want to help the environment, by which I presume means cutting down on CO2 emissions, while propping up one of the largest emitting industries in the country. Is this just an example of arrogant incompetence, or are the Liberals planning on making everyone else sacrifice more so that the auto sector can do less?
If the latter is affirmed, where will the deep cuts come from? Alberta can only bear so much, not just politically but also as far as the sheer amount of impact reductions would bring. The Maritimes are also far too small to count for very much. Quebec is already running around like a chicken sans la tête. So in other words, the Liberals will already be lying: either to industries like the auto sector (other industries aren’t going to be pleased if one sector gets favourable treatment at their expense) or to the voting public who will vote for them based on their environmental rhetoric.
Of course, well before e-day, there’s a strong possibility — around the realm of odds that the sun’ll come up tomorrow — that the current governing party will point out this paradox to voters. After all, if the Liberal strategy actually worked, why don’t they also promise to resolve the Middle East dispute by giving both Israel and the Palestinians rights to the land or that Coke and Pepsi will both share the Greatest Cola Ever award? It might have something to do with the Conservatives being quite willing to also remind voters that whichever way you cut it, under the Liberals you the voter will be paying for it!
Brian wrote:
Well what is different from past Liberal campaign promises , in which the Liberals (Chretien :Federal , McGuinty (Provincial) , promised what the dumb voters wanted to hear and once they in power with a majority did/do whatever they want , or in the case of McGuinty .. do nothing!
It really is a sad reflection of the mentality of Canadian voters when the Liberals are able to bring forth such garbage and the voters keep voting for them.
I think Harper is making a huge mistake attempting to pander to the environmentalists and the GTA (Toronto) voters , because I believe the Liberals could inject Attila the Hun as their leader and these folks would continue to vote Liberal !
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 8:49 am | Permalink
Abattoir wrote:
You present a false dichotomy, Matthew. It’s a strategy frequently employed by those opposing any kind of environmentally-friendly actions. Either you can have a successful economy (e.g. strong auto sector, oil sands) OR you can help the environment (less GHG). This is simply untrue.
If one tries to use any imagination at all, we can see there are ways out of this ‘paradox’. It is possible to have both, but it requires some work to change the status quo.
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 11:28 am | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
Whoops! Look who has slipped above his weight class again…
Couldn’t you just write a review of Stargate Atlantis or something?
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 11:42 am | Permalink
Marko wrote:
Abattoir, the biggest falsehood is the fact that the new environmentalists are concerned about the environment. CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food. CO2 can not be a climate change driver since CO2 increased last year and temperatures dropped. The new Greens are simply the latest incarnation of jackbooted thugs. How much anti-business rhetoric do you need to read before you see the marxist mindset behind the movement? The environmental movement has already killed more people than communism - and they are just getting started.
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
Abattoir wrote:
Marko, even plant food can be pollution. I’m afraid your rather simplistic view of the relationship between CO2 and global temperature misses the point.
The environmental movement has killed more people than Communism? I’d love to see you try to back that one up.
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
jmrSudbury wrote:
We have been using solar power for decades and it is still terribly inefficient. We have been using wind power for generations, but there have been no significant advances there either. The sun goes down each day. The wind blows intermitently. Ethanol is worse than petroleum. Hydrogen cells are not widely available, more than 10 times more expensive, and have reliability troubles.
How are we going to suddenly come up with new technological advances when people have been trying for years to no avail? Many billions of dollars have been spent already. You can say, “[i]f one tries to use any imagination at all, we can see there are ways out of this ‘paradox,’” but there is no evidence of a solution yet. Our batteries are poor even with the improved nickel foam that was being developed in the 1990s. It has been over ten years and our batteries still suck.
When a better energy source comes along, then we should switch. We need to be real about this. Saying that we just aren’t being imaginative enough will not cut it. We need solutions. Until then, it is not a false dichotomy. Yours is simpy false hope.
John M Reynolds
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Abattoir, if we could have our cake and eat it too (eg. a “green economy” like the one envisioned by Jack Layton where car companies make green cars via green processes) don’t you think the struggling American companies would’ve done it already? After all, with all the hype these days, a auto maker could really make a handy buck by advertising itself as a carbon-neutral car manufacturer.
The fact that this has not occurred in ANY company in the auto sector lends heavy evidence to the argument that it is not financially viable to do so and therefore it would hurt our local manufacturers if the government were to impose such measures on said companies. Doesn’t sound like much of a false anything to me!
(note: Marko has my full agreement though that C02 isn’t a pollutant)
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
The environment has nothing to do with this Liberal “insider report” any more than entering Afghanistan had anything to do with Liberal governance.
-
—
-
This Liberal “insider report” presented by Don Martin is:
1) nothing but a wet source-of-methane-in-a-cow-pasture before an election has even been called
2) completely unoriginal coming from Liberals
Anybody who has stepped foot on Canadian soil in the past 25 years is probably able to recognize these vacuous re-hashed Liberal campaign ideas.
3) a good clue that we are probably going to have an election this year! Fun! Fun! Fun!
I can not wait to get my Bloc lawn sign!
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 5:49 am | Permalink
Abattoir wrote:
John,
Solar, wind, and battery technology have all significantly improved in the last few decades - I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from. The cost of solar panels is dropping exponentially, while efficiency is rising. Wind farms are being deployed around the world. We’ve gone through several generations of batteries, with Li-ion or Li-polymer now being used to power everything from MP3 players to cars.
With oil over $110/barrel, these alternatives look more affordable all the time. New industries, technologies, and businesses are springing up all around the world. There is good money to be made, but only if you reject the status quo.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 10:05 am | Permalink
jmrSudbury wrote:
The small improvements are nowhere near good enough. The Prius only goes short distances (40 miles) before needed the gas/diesel engine. The batteries are still not able to handle the driving distances plus the accessories, like the radio, to which we have become accustomed. The auto sector is nowhere near being able to make the jump to electric. The price of oil will indeed help push the industry that way, but the Liberals using auto industry aid as part of a campaign is indeed a dichotomy if they are also pushing environmental improvements.
Adding in the scientific sounding Lithium polymer battery to your comment is not enough to sway me in light of it having reduced cycle durability and only marginal power improvements while not working as well at lower temperatures as required by vehicles.
The sun still sets, the wind often neglects to blow. These solutions will continue to be small augmentations to real power solutions.
John M Reynolds
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 9:37 am | Permalink