Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Leaked Tory Climate Plan

CTV says they have obtained a copy of a secret Conservative climate plan, which is presently being studied and may form the basis of any new plans moving forward.

While I'm glad to see progress, this statement concerns me greatly... "It would allow companies to purchase carbon credits under the Kyoto protocol's clean development mechanism, which is intended to encourage investment in poor countries."

While I'm all for assisting the third world in economic development, I despise the idea that we may actually allow the purchasing of foreign emission credits in this manner. It means that Canadian companies will be sending investment dollars offshore, instead of reinvesting in new technologies, thus creating and keeping Canadian jobs here at home. (not to mention the lost tax revenues of any new technologies)

If this component does become part of any new plan, I will protest it... as I've said before, it is a hill I'm prepared to die on. It is bad policy, plain and simple. It is one of the parts of the Kyoto Protocol that I am most opposed to.

And since I know that I get visits from the folks at Environment Canada... I sure hope you guys are listening.

Labels: ,


  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 09:22:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This would be a disappointment. Any compromise that would line us up with Maurice Strong's 'napkin on a plane' plan would be an embarrassment.
    If we are to be at all concerned with 'third world' countries, no amount of 'carbon credit' will help Zimbabwe...

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 09:50:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    That's better than the governments buying credits for nothing. In this case, companies can approach other countries and negotiate something of value for themselves when they're buying hot-air.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 10:15:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Canadi-anna said…

    This makes me so angry.
    Buying credits does nothing to help the environment.
    Bowing to the pressure of the climate change Chicken Littles is a waste of money, regardless of who the money is coming from. In the end, it's always the consumer/taxpayer who shells out the cash.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 10:36:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Calgary Junkie said…

    The enviro-wackos have set up the oil companies as the fall guys for our GHG problems. Large corporations have always been the target of NDP rhetoric, and now the Greens, BLOC, and Dion-led Libs are piling on. So what should Harper do ?

    The answer again comes from Tom Flanagan's general rule for setting CPC policy: Be far enough to the right of the Liberals so as to be clearly distinguishable from them, but not too far to the right so as not to be seen as scary.

    Harper has to be somewhat easier on the companies, but not too easy on them, or else he will be subjected to the inevitable "selling out to the corporations" rhetoric. Most of the blame for any eventual carbon-trading schemes can be put at the feet of Dion. At best, Harper can only fight Dion to a draw on the environment, as the enviro-advocates and much of the media are on Dion's side. And so Harper has to stay reasonably close to whatever position Dion holds.

    Don't give Dion ANYTHING in the way of a wedge issue to take into the election.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 10:52:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "Don't give Dion ANYTHING in the way of a wedge issue to take into the election."

    I'm assuming that you're making that statement to the powers that be in the CPC? You're right... let's not give Dion an internal CPC row to try and use to hurt us.

    Let's finally take credit trading off the table, ONCE AND FOR ALL.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 11:36:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I find it hilarious that people who claim to know and like market economies cannot understand the notion of a market for emissions and that it is the most efficient first step to achieve the "low hanging fruit" of emission reduction.

    It is likely because, like your leader little Harper(i.e. lifelong political hack with no private sector knowledge), you also only know about the operation of the private sector by reading about it.

    Why don;t you read about what carbon markets are actually about and then spout off about them.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 12:23:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Red Tory said…

    Maybe you should wait and see what the particulars are before getting all consternated about it.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 01:10:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Hey RT, trust me, I am eagerly waiting for it.

    Basically this is just a warning shot across the bow to those in high places, reminding them to tred very lightly in this realm... because I know if it looks like what CTV has mentioned, a whole lot of CPCer's are going to be willing to raise a stink over it, maybe even enough to cost us a few ridings... or even an election.

    That's how serious an issue this is, and why I wanted to make sure my voice was heard NOW, while there's still time to reconsider.

    But you're right... I'll wait and take a look at it myself before passing any judgement.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 01:13:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Anon @ 11:36, I think I understand well enough... it's a market for buying hot air. I don't support sending millions of dollars out of the country to buy hot air... if I want hot air, I'll listen to Liberal party speeches.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 01:37:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well, you just revealed you know absolutely nothing about it.

    So... carry on in the knowledge that your preconceived notions will be untainted by reality.


  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 01:43:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Here is the simplest possible overview that you MIGHT be able to understand, at least conceptually:

    A cap-and-trade emission trading system is successful from both an environmental and economic viewpoints because:

    1. It relies on a fixed environmental goal—an emissions limit, or cap. Direct monitoring of emissions is used both to verify that the cap is achieved and to insure the value of the tradable allowances.

    2. It provides industry with the flexibility to find the least-cost solution to emissions reduction. It provides direct financial incentives for new low-cost control technology and other approaches to reduce emissions.

    3. Banking of allowances provides an incentive to make larger than required reductions in a given time period.

    4. It focuses industry and government on what they each do best. The entrepreneurial skills of industry are harnessed for pollution reduction.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 02:17:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    I am actually well aware of these things.

    This setup falls down in being able to deliver it's stated goals because companies, instead of being able to spend every dollar on investments and new technologies, they're having to spend $0.50 on new technologies, and $0.50 on paying for emission overages to cover their butts for going over their emission limits.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 02:29:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    New made in Canada technologies, I might add, we could have then sold and exported to other nations, while employing hundreds of Canadians to go abroad and install them around the globe.

    Yes, the global carbon market may reduce our emissions on paper, but it is not the best solution for Canada.

    Investment and hard reductions here at home is the only feasible option for Canada. Tt will:

    1) deliver real and tangible reductions here in Canada, instead of just masking them with foreign credits,

    2) provide opportunity for investment here at home by supporting our homegrown research and technology sectors,

    3) open doors for foreign investment as we develop those technologies,

    4) create jobs here at home as we build those technologies,

    5) increase tax revenues as we sell those technologies,

    6) help other nations around the world as we assist them in reducing their emissions with good old made in Canada technologies.

    I see plenty of downsides to a foreign credit scheme. I see fewer downsides to a national research and development based, non-foreign credit system.

  • At Tue. Apr. 17, 05:34:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Most of your points I agree with - except that they are re-inforced with an international market where Canadian technology can be leveraged in foreign markets on these projects. Canadian tech will be more likely to succeed if Canada itself is part of the market.


Post a Comment

<< Home