rhetoric as which comes out the mouths of the opponents to fixing the climate."Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy," blurts PM Harper to anyone who will listen (and the numbers who listen are growing smaller by the day).
Even the ultra left Deputy NDP leader Thomas Mulcair branded the plan "a train wreck of programs..."
Is the plan complete? No. I would prefer that the plan give some more obvious estimates of the effects of the plan on carbon emissions. The Liberals have stated that their goal was to reduce 2020 emissions to a level that will be 20% below the level in 1990. Is that do-able? Certainly the Con and NDP policies of capping emissions won't do it.
Is the plan possible to achieve, especially the revenue neutral part? Both the Cons and the NDP, as well as most of the media gloss over the statement in the plan that the Auditor General will make sure that money in versus money out as outlined in the plan is achieved. Do the Cons, NDP and me
dia not trust the Auditor General?To underline and personalize the way the plan will work, the Green Shift web site (www.thegreenshift.ca) has a calculator to determine what your tax offset will be under the plan. However, rather than being personal on the cost side, the plan makes a general statement that the cost will be $350 per household, offset by the savings in taxes. We have two vehicles, live in the country and have gas heat. Are we typical? I am not sure.
Have we gone so far to partisanship in this country that we automatically oppose any idea if it isn't our own? Pretty sad state of affairs.
2 comments:
Money in versus money out, but not in the way the Nutty Professor would have everyone believe. The bulk of the money out will go to social levelling schemes that have always been the main thrust in Liberal ideology. People who think they will be getting back a big chunk of the extra money they lay out in this tax are in for a rude awakening. What the Nutty Professor and this gang of social engineers failed to mention is that 'revenue neutral' did not apply to the people supplying the bulk of the revenue.
I assume that you based your argument on the fact that you went to the Green Shift site calculator and it told you that you will not getting back the money the plan takes from you?
What is the alternative to this goofy mess we are sliding into? Do we ignore the past and just cap emissions at todays levels? Do we cap it in 2011? Do we ignore it because we are only the 5th worst polluters per capita in the world and not the worst?
Let's forget the rhetoric for a bit and focus on a solution.
Dion's plan is not perfect but it can be implemented rapidly, can produce results and can help my kid to breather a bit easier with fewer smog alerts.
Post a Comment