YNoKyoto!

No toilet paper ehh ? No wonder they were anxious to get out of there. What a great incentive to shorten a meeting. Well planned.

Maurice Strong probably stole it.

You were supposed to just use one square, Tim. Get with the Program.

Mo Strong's fabulous flop - "RIO minus 20"

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf

The problem with Gaia worship is that it is a false god, and that is why Rio-20 failed. Learn physics and be free, so long Rio.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Cristo_Redentor_-_Rio.jpg

Hah, Christ the Redeemer presides over their failure...I'm sure that will drive them all relentlessly over the cliff among the Gaderene swine.

The Gadarene Swine Fallacy

The GSF is the fallacy of supposing that because a group is in the right formation, it is necessarily on the right course; and conversely, of supposing that because an individual has strayed from the group and isn't in formation, that he is off course. The individual may seem lost to the group but not off course to an ideal observer.

Cheers

Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

When it's all said and done, there's been more SAID..than DONE.

I'm disappointed that we didn't get any fossil awards,or maybe this chinwag didn't have them.

The Iranian nut-bar Imamadjihad spoke at the conference and once again our guys walked out.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadian+delegations+boycotts+Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad+address+summit/6815699/story.html

Any conference that treats. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a hero is more than juts a waste of time and money.

It is default on human morality.

Pierre Trudeau would understand. He sat out the great moral crusade of his generation and let other people stop and then destroy Hitler's Nazi legions.

The ctv article said nobody is happy. I myself feel quit good about it maybe it's just me.

Next to collapse from the weight of its own delusions: U.N. Agenda 21.

From the CTV article:

Some of the biggest issues activists wanted to see in the document that didn't make it in included a call to end subsidies for fossil fuels

This blurb alone show how little grasp or reality those 'activists' have.

The only reason for the widespread prosperity of the world in the last 200 years, and a corresponding reduction of poverty, has been access to cheap and abundant fossil fuels.

If those idiots want to convince us they are sincere, let them go back to the land and live like we did in the 1800s.

Ah yes, subsidies for fossil fuels. As if any other business can't write off expenses. It sounds much "better" their way though.

The very media that championed this SCAM from the beginning is now laughing at the SCAMsters like slimey Maurice, this is rich. Thank the real God Harper is in charge of Canada now, if Turdough or da proof is da proof was still in charge we would all be on power generating treadmills by now with no bathroom breaks let alone toilet paper. The world gets to see a lot of the stupidest, most gullible inhabitants of the planet gathered in one place, Rio, if nothing else.

This is great day for free people.

Hans, agreed.

"Ah yes, subsidies for fossil fuels. As if any other business can't write off expenses. It sounds much "better" their way though." Exactly! It is funny how a legitimate tax expense is a bad thing when they want to denigrate a business.

The reporter says, "Not the legion of bleary-eyed government negotiators from 193 nations who met in a failed attempt to find a breakthrough at the United Nations conference on sustainable development." but surely means, "hung over."

When one contemplates earthquakes, tsunamis, large volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, and all the other lethalies of nature, one realizes a simple truth: Gaia is a serial killer; Gaia is a mass murderer.

That is our common human predicament. Lying about it, or fantasizing that it is otherwise, is useless.

Nature rules, often with great cruelty.

"Nature rules, often with great cruelty" is an example of the pathetic fallacy. Nature is not cruel nor is it kind. It is indifferent to our wishes, our hopes, and our sufferings. Human intelligence, knowledge, and will can ameliorate nature's inhumanity to some effect; our fatuities exacerbate her workings.

Rio+20 may have been a failure ...

"But Environment Minister Peter Kent said the awards are politically motivated, and don't reflect Canada's commitment to promoting sustainable development at a global level."

Is there anything else he is committed to? An asylum maybe ?

"We have to remind some of the folks who want to create great new funds and start massive transfers of wealth that we have first got to get our global economic house in order, before we can go off in some of these very positive directions."

Great. Is there a global fascist in the House ?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Canada+awarded+dubious+distinction+talks+sustainable/6789106/story.html#ixzz1yeHBxqxv

Not a fan of Peter Kent. I think he actually believes the BS. He can pay all the lip service he wants, just don't bind us to an agreement that would drive us into the stone age for it to succeed.

"No toilet paper, no water .."

Add no food, shelter, electricity, transportation to that list and begin to understand life under a green regime.

As the poet says, Hans: Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth.

Here's Claudia Rosett writing in PJ Media about Rio+20:

"And this week, when some 50,000 eminences, professional climate junketeers and other worthies carbon-emitted their way to Brazil for the UN’s Rio+20 conference on “Sustainable Development,” there came, of course, that Ahmadinejad moment. Eighteen minutes and 16 seconds of Ahmadinejad, actually — you can watch it on video here – in which UN authorities announced the “honor” of inviting “his excellency” to take the podium. The current leaders of the Free World — those would be the Canadian delegates — walk out. Maybe some others do, too. Still in the room is an audience that will applaud at the end of Ahmadinejad’s speech, and a presiding UN official who will thank him for it. Ahmadinejad ascends the stage, and with a multilateral backdrop of flags, before a lectern decked out with the UN logo, he preens himself in the world spotlight."

Hey folks, read your Mulcair.

The subsidies to the fossil fuel industry that these folks want eliminated are "externality costs" of not cleaning up the carbon output from producing fossil fuels.

As I understand the dogma, the "externality costs" of flooding great swaths of Quebec to produce electricity are different and allowable. The "externality costs" of disposing of spent Uranium are bad and not allowable, The "externality costs" of burning wood, coal or charcoal in the developing world are ok and allowable. Oil produced by Chavez and the Saudi's has not external costs and is ok, especially if the proceeds are used to promote Wahabi multiculturalism or Chavez socialism.

Greenie, miner, Ken:

The Canadian "exploration tax credit" is a credit of 25% of the cost of an oil or gas well that cost over $5 million. This is over and above the costs of actually finding/drilling - those are considered normal business expense, and are deductible. This gives companies an added incentive over and above the cost of any oil they find.

I don't care how you colour this; it's a subsidy. Say the company drills a $20 million well; their ETC is a $5 million tax credit. Say total revenues were $100 million, all other costs were $30 million. Gross profit is then $100 - $30 - $20 (for the well) = $50 million. (I'm keeping the numbers simple so those at home can play along) If taxes are payable at a 20% corporate rate, they would owe $10 million in tax. But thanks to their ETC, they only owe $5 million. After tax profit rises to $45 million from $40 - an 11% rise.

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of whether it's a good subsidy or a bad subsidy; it's a subsidy, and it's not part of the normal costs of doing business (they got to deduct all $20 million for drilling the well).

As a free market believer, I agree with the eco-nuts on this one: end the subsidies for oil companies. Of course, I also believe in ending all gov't subsidies for greenie 'think tanks' and other NGO's; I doubt the eco-nuts will thank me for that.

{quote]I also believe in ending all gov't subsidies for greenie 'think tanks' and other NGO's; I doubt the eco-nuts will thank me for that. [/quote] KevinB

The Canadian Government has the odd habit of funding all sides to an issue, how many Canadians went to Rio on the Taxpayers dime, that in my mind suggests that Canadians represent a façade, phony POV.. If you need to pay people to attend a hearing it's not real. It’s orchestrated and fraudulent…. DON'T PAY ANY NGO's

It was (and always has been) government-sponsored pontification from the clueless who rely on government money. Circle-jerk, anyone?

Now coming is the ass-covering and "I didn't do it", "dog ate my homework" and "I was only doing my job".

No worries, though. There's always another imagined crisis that the main stream media will be breathlessly waiting to report on. It's scammers' heaven.

Re the toilet paper thingy I'm with Gaylord, I think Moe probably stole it, or a second plausible reason was that Lizzy May had the runs.. at best, she's probably a 2 double roll type, but with Montezuma's revenge, she'd be off the charts.

robins111,Are you suggesting that Lizzie may be full of ...?

Kevin B.....the "exploration tax credit" is not solely for the oil and gas industry. The greenies and the left (same group, really) consider anything LESS than 100% taxation as a subsidy.

Unless, it is unions, of course....who are exempt from income tax and capital gains tax and have to report to no one.

Exploration drilling is a horrifying business practice. Your chance of success is what, 1 in 6? The prize is huge if you hit but it is a hair-raising investment. The benefit of a successful hit to the national economy is also huge, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth generated from that hole in the ground. Real wealth creation, not socialist wealth creation from slave labour. Government incentives for exploration drilling are probably well thought out numbers-wise, and probably a net benefit to the taxpayer.

Steffi Dion been seen anywhere?

Exploration drilling is a horrifying business practice. Your chance of success is what, 1 in 6? The prize is huge if you hit but it is a hair-raising investment. The benefit of a successful hit to the national economy is also huge, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth generated from that hole in the ground. Real wealth creation, not socialist wealth creation from slave labour. Government incentives for exploration drilling are probably well thought out numbers-wise, and probably a net benefit to the taxpayer.

You probably missed the bit in my post where I explicitly said:

"I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of whether it's a good subsidy or a bad subsidy; it's a subsidy"

Are you suggesting that there would be no drilling if there were no ETC? Has it not been said here many times (e.g. electric cars) that if it needs a gov't subsidy, it's not worth doing? Are we not all blaming gov't easy money (cheap mortgages through Fannie and Freddie, for example) for the US housing debacle? Answer me these questions three, my good fellow, and no, I don't care if it's a European or African swallow.

Strive to be a bit more consistent.

I wonder if the 'reproductive rights of women' as championed by the Rio+20 organization includes bucking China's one-child policy and forced abortions? The activists can't have it only their way, and what does the issue of reproductive rights of women have to do with their favourite punching bag, the Alberta oil sands?

I noticed Elizabeth May grousing about the summit last night on the Twitter stage....

A tax credit is not a subsidy, since the government does not dole put any money. They simply forego collecting a portion of the tax they normally would take. And a big chunk of the foregone tax revenue comes right back to the government in the form of income tax collected from the drilling crews and guys like me in the service industries.

A tax credit is not a subsidy, since the government does not dole put any money. They simply forego collecting a portion of the tax they normally would take.

Nice piece of sophistry there, gordo. I'm going to put it in my collection, right next to "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is", and "Da proof is da proof. An' wen you 'ave a good proof, it's because it's proven".

So your bank pays you interest on your savings account, and a fee on your chequing account. If they decide to stop paying you interest, you wouldn't say it costs you more to deal with them, since they're not actually taking any more money from you, they're just not giving you money they used to? Can I be your banker?

Possibly somewhat less exploration drilling without the 'subsidy', which (sorry but) is not a really subsidy if it is a tax deduction. Unless you think the taxman's entitled to some larger amount and all tax deductions are subsidies.

Failed exploration drilling leaves you with less than nothing, you lose ALL your money plus you get to subsidize some genuine green jobs in the years ahead as the site and access roads are completely restored, including natural vegetation.

So there's some tax breaks. It's recognition of the huge contribution to the GDP the risky investment often makes and it probably encourages the gamble, makes the economics a little less grim.

But this is not a forum...

"No toilet paper, no water .."

But...but that would be a success wouldn't it? Isn't that part of what they want for all of us?

According to KevinB anything less than tax of 100% of the profit is a 'subsidy'. In other words whatever amount the gov't allows us to keep is a 'subsidy'. Typical leftist...

Glad he's not in the drivers seat...

fiddle-dee-dee driveled:

ccording to KevinB anything less than tax of 100% of the profit is a 'subsidy'.

Never said it, not saying it, never going to say it. Don't put words in my mouth, you cretin. Since I'm polite, I won't suggest your sub-normal reading comprehension is either congenital (FAS?) or the result of being dropped on your head as a child; suffice it to say, it exists.

When the government directs EXTRA money into a specific industry, it's a subsidy. Whether it's a direct cash grant, a tax credit, or an exemption from fees that other businesses pay, IF SOME BUSINESSES AREN'T PAYING WHAT OTHER BUSINESSES ARE PAYING OR THEY'RE GETTING BENEFITS OTHER INDUSTRIES DON'T GET, IT'S A SUBSIDY. All profitable businesses pay some level of tax - and Canadian corporate taxes are actually pretty low, compared to other Western states - so if your business is getting some special treatment from the government that lets you pay less tax (i.e. make a higher profit), you are getting a subsidy. That's pretty much what the definition of a subsidy is. Governments increasingly like tax credits since 1) they're simple to administer - no one to review grant applications, etc., and it makes the companies do all the bookkeeping on their tax returns, and 2) they're invisible to the general public (no big ceremonies with huge paper cheques for the opposition to point at if the program goes sour), and 3) there's a certain class of idiot who doesn't consider a tax credit a subsidy.

And, since a lot of corporate taxation gets used by the government for useless purposes, I'd be in favour of lower corporate taxes, but not zero corporate taxes. Some legitimate gov't functions: courts, contract enforcement, firemen, etc., benefit corporations as much as they benefit people, and corporations should pay for those benefits just like people do.

Probably the Rio delegates are poor tippers.

Kevin, I agree with you that any financial benefit one company receives which another does not constitutes a subsidy. The problem here is the pejorative nature of the word "subsidy". Anything conservatives support cannot by definition be a subsidy. Hence, hypocrisy abounds.

You indicated earlier that you were not discussing whether a subsidy was good or bad, simply that it existed. I agree with this as well. What subsidies really are are governments investing in those things they want to encourage, for whatever reason. What is lacking, and has always been lacking, is any kind of assessment as to whether such investments are of value to the taxpayer. Some things like energy system investments can be quantified to some extent, others such as investment in basic research cannot.

What's needed is a clear way of analyzing which ones are useful and which are not.

As for the shouting and hand-waving up above, what you've demonstrated is what happens when the egg of ideological purity meets the brick wall of practical political reality. Well done.

"...tables being moved out from underneath us..."

Not new. Just about every COP conference ends this way. It always comes down to the last few hours at some ungodly hour of the morning for the final text of the conference to be finalized. It's happened at every one of these useless bun-fests I've been at over the years.

They always run past the time for which their space rental expired.

Running out of toilet paper and water? Again not a surprise. They always underestimate how many useless tools from the environmental movement and the media show up. They always underestimate the size of supposed government delegations that come.

Kevinb... I'm just curious to know what your stance is on the millions of dollars GM received in development grants, and tax credits for the Volt. Or the billions GE received for windmill development..

Interesting daffynition, being able to keep more of your own money is a subsidy.

If a thief robs Kevin, and not me, I'm being subsidized. If a thief robs us both, I'm not subsidized.

The politics of envy is alive and well among leftists.

The conference was a resounding success for the delegates since it's an excuse to have more conferences. Expect more private jets whisking UN and national government bureaucrats to champagne and caviar fandangos in the tourist hot spots of the world paid for by the ever-fleeceable taxpayer. Handwringing enviro-loons get to declare their intentions of throwing ever more hysterical tantrums in order to con yet more money out of the usual gullible dupes that are their revenue base, and we get to pass yet more tipping points and points-of-no-return in the hopes that the sane of the world will forget about all the other points-of-no-return we supposedly passed years ago. The media get to push out ever more fatuous unresearched, unchecked clap trap and governments get ever more excuses to tighten the financial screws on the governed.
In comparison to this collection of characters, PT Barnum was an amateur. Send out the clowns.

The ETC is technically a "tax expenditure" as is RRSP deductions and a host of other deductions. The ETC is a non-refundable tax credit meaning the company must make a profit before they benefit, with some carryforward/back provisions.

Even forgetting about royalties, Mulcair's subsidy ploy is just another way to get more taxes out of his boogeymen - the oil industry. Why not nail Canadians who buy RRSPs and use refunds to buy gas guzzlers?

The externality argument and application has been pushed and pulled in so many directions it's the silly putty of welfare economics. For example charge a tax on cigarettes to pay for the externalities (medical and social costs), then turn around years later and sue cigarette companies (for the medical costs) when you start to run out of other people's money. It's tax grab, any other argument if pure BS.

Oh No the conference was not a happy one. Here let me begin my jig of sorrow right now.

Rio+20: "Some of the biggest issues activists wanted to see in the document that didn't make it in included ... language underscoring the reproductive rights of women ... "

Huh?!