Goodness, this completely overturns my economic model. More study needed!

Another ground-breaking study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

I'd call them a think-tank but does it take much thinking to regurgitate tired, discredited, socialist claptrap?

I travel to Asia quite a bit and it's amazing to see how quickly many of these countries are emerging from poverty after adopting a capitalist approach. So it's pretty laughable that here in Canada -- where we too have clearly enjoyed the benefits of capitalism -- there is a sizable group of people with their hands firmly clamped over their eyes that refuse to recognize the blatantly obvious. They're like those B-movie dinosaurs forgotten on a remote island.

So ridiculous.

Next thing you're gonna tell me is the climate fluctuating, we'd better study this"climate change".

richer households tend to have a higher footprint because they purchase larger, detached homes

Okay, okay not so fast, I'm trying to write this down.

So, the key to saving the planet is - poverty. After all, the developing world is so clean, just look at China. No, wait...

The CPA can bleat all they want - the cleanest economies are the richest. Plain and simple.

I had to go to the comment section on cbc.ca and reporting all the negative remarks about rich people as 'hate speech'. In my Canada we don't tolerate such intolerance!

I need to stop revising the structure of my sentences, it never seems to ends well.

Apparently the Liberal-Greens didn't get the former Liberal government's memo about Sustainable Development... ( or even the one about former...)

I saw this article too, Kate, and thought "Bloody 'ell, wot a shokka!!"

"...low end of the income scale, motor vehicles are either not needed, not affordable or used sparingly."

If the actions of low-income chinese et al are anything to go by, once those on the low end of the income scale far enough up the income scale they aquire a larger 'footprint' especially by owning and driving a vehicle.

Affordablity is the ONLY reason the poor don't own and operate vehicles.

The article, by using the "not needed" reason attempts to make being poor = being holier than thou.

In other words,the poor should'nt get richer and the rich should be poor,in fact the poorer we are the less footprint we will have untill if we are poor enough we wont have a footprint at all!

This totally messed me up. I thought the downtown east side was where the nice houses are and everyone drives a Mercedes.

Thank you CBC for setting me straight.

I wonder if Charles Adler would consider putting on a progress advocate like Bill Whittle to discuss what happens to societies where the governments turn into oppressors of free markets and individual choice.

It's not hard to see where the "left-wing think tank" that came up with the wealth vs carbon footprint study is heading policy-wise. I wonder how brown the shirts are over in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. If Canadians love this country that so many have died in defending it's freedoms and values there's only one thing to do with this suffocating economic and social policy thrust: Eject! Eject! Eject!

A small, gram or two, of kudos to the CBC for at least identifying the Center for Policy Alternatives as a "left-oriented" think tank.
Dare I hope that they will continue?

It's great to be at the top of the spectrum. Although I don't fly much.

I had to work hard for it. But then one must work hard nowadays to fund the less-motivated brought to us by government decree.

It's kinda like totalitarian charity.

Regarding the Green Shaft we may get, if I may. I am thinking that the theory behind this (among others) is that if the tax burden can be shifted from income to consumption, then rising taxes can be rationalized by stating that greedy, piggy over-consumption is hurting the environment and presto, a tax hike levied on energy or toilet paper or whatever the item of the day is and it will be completely buffered by our guilt.

This takes the more difficult rational of raising income taxes out of the fleecing of the public equation.

And here is another one to distart reality.

Harris Decima conducted a poll. And according to them, the Green Shaft is being positively received. However, if one should actually read the question and read the results, then the story is actually quite different.

1st question:
This week the federal Liberal Party announced its new environmental policy. Based on what you have seen, read or heard do you
think this is a policy that you will strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose or have you not heard enough to form
any opinion yet?
Overall: 14% support it; 17% oppose; and 64% have not heard enough.

2nd question:
The Liberals are calling their policy A Green Shift. The main elements are putting a tax on carbon or greenhouse gas emissions,
and using the money raised by this tax to reduce income and other taxes, to provide financial support for those less well off and
to invest in green technologies. The tax increases will be phased in over four years and will not apply to gasoline. Based on this
description would you say this is a policy you strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose?

Result: 47% support; 39% oppose; 14% don't know

OK - so my question is if 64% have not heard enough - then how can 47% of the same respondents support it?

http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/080624E.pdf

Who'd a thunk it!

Didn't the Goracle just recently get busted with a 10% electricity consumption gain over last year.

If I remember correctly, last hear he used the power equivillent of 20 average homes.

Judging from the cool $100 mil he's pulled in since he left office I can only assume 22 is fine for now but next year he hopes to break 25.

I wonder what the little green shifter and the fruitfly think about this?

Syncro

Relax , syncro , it's all cool . Word is he buys offsets ....... from some guy .... hold on a sec ( mental picture of an incandescent light bulb being turned on here ) ........ sonofabitch !

Synchro, which one of Gore's mansions was 10% over or was it all of them?

Bill D. Cat

Pretty much what I thought. Incandescent light bulbs are evil.

Free Thinker

According to the article this is an isolated incident involving only one mansion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369084,00.html

Read it all.

The poet/minstrel thing at the end brought a tear of awesometude to my one good eye.

Syncro

The sin, which nobody wants to utter explicitly, is that there are people that earn big incomes.

For as long as I can remember, media types have been envious of the rich.

What is the definition of rich? Anyone who earns more than a reporter.

Incandescent light bulbs are evil.

Well dammit then let's form a mob and do sumpin' about it ! ......hold on a sec .....

Several years ago there was an Ag study that revealed a corral 4 planks high was more effective at restraining cattle than was a corral 3 planks high. No guff.

I guess this style of reasoning never dies.

Len-

I presume they were studying political planks and got turned around making all those left turns. You never can tell how wide political planks are, moving goalposts, variable rulers, it must get tiresome...(Even Planck's Constant isn't, for them).

spike 1 @ 7:17, not surprisingly the leftard environazis believe mother earth would be much better off without any humans be they rich or poor. They'd love us (not them obviously) to be good and dead. All for the greater good of course. Save the polar bears and what not.

I find it interesting that the new twist top mercury filled lights are ONLY MADE IN CHINA.

Think about that!

P.S. Kate stop yelling into radios, granted it does feel good sometimes. Just no punching of dashboards, kay?

Bill D. Cat

Environmentally friendly torches are hard to come by. I heard about this site:

http://www.algore.com/

Seems their working on a torch that consumes carbon emissions and produces cash.

Feels like a sound investment.

Syncro

The one thing that becomes perfectly clear is that "the rich" have very big feet, or at least, footprints, which I assume are a reliable scientific indicator of foot size.

Given this, equality of foot size ought to become a pressing humans rights issue in Canada. People with large feet should be fined and people with small feet should receive subsidies and allowances and official status with the HRCs.

Since there is always the possibility for abuse, including the disguising of overly large feet, we will also need a foot registry.

I read something in a Victor Davis Hanson article recently (and I can't find it right now so I will paraphrase).

The rich can afford to be environmentalists whereas the poor cannot. Which is why (in fact) most environmentally friendly homes belong to rich people (they can afford the latest heating systems, they can slap solar panels and efficient bulbs all over the place, they are the ones buying the latest hybrids, etc.). Poorer folks are the ones buying used gas guzzling clunkers or have old homes in poorer neighbourhoods that would cost a fortune to upgrade.

That is why most tree hugging, global warming environmentalists have money - they don't have to worry about getting by week by week.

Stop the presses! Breaking news from Calgary has numerous credible sources reporting the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Film at eleven! And now to our expert . . .

Once again, the staggering innumeracy of the CBC displays itself.

The article talks about the footprint of homes with $155,000 or more in annual disposable income. (That's what's left of your income after taxes, CPP/QPP, EI, etc. are deducted.) Now, given that the average two-earner Canadian family has a disposable income of about $65k, this means that despite having nearly two and a half times the disposable income, these rich households don't consume anywhere near the same amount of resources per dollar earned as the average Canadian. If they did, the rich homes' footprint would be over 18 hectares instead of merely twelve.

The CBC should be honouring these rich, yet frugal, Canadians for their success at reducing their marginal propensity to consume carbon-based resources.

Finally, the CBC's..er.. uh - dangit, I can't just find it in myself to call them journalists; will sluggos do? - writer-thingies should be sent back to school to learn how to manipulate a set of statistics to support any point of view.

syncro , you know how serious about this issue I am ......... if only I can figure a way to get the cars off these tires before I throw them on the fire , I'm sure I can get my emissions under some kind of " hat " , or " touque " or whatever the hell they call it these days. It's not izzy being green , you know .

Bill D. Cat

If only we had one things or two things.

Syncro

I was promised there would be no math here .

In other breaking news, scientists have discovered that it's not a good idea to shut your toddler in a closet with a wolverine.

Was the wolverine hurt? Was Spammy notified?

Syncro

C'mon guys....givem a break.

I'm sure next year they will create a stir by declaring that it costs more to heat a home in winter than in summer.

I think it was last year they announced that richer people spend more money than poorer people.

It's kinda like Mythbusters for the politically correct.

Thank god I am working in Montana and don't have to listen to that finger in the wind loser Adler any more , here I can listen to Hannity and Sullivan and not put up with the, size of Julie's hooters and Kansellit radio from Diddler online any more.

Today I received a check for $100.00. A "Climate
action dividend". BS. A blatant vote buying attempt by the socialist lieberals of BC. In less than a week gas goes up by 2 1/2 to 7 1/4 cents per liter, by 2012. When the farther left NDP attempted to buy my vote with a gas rebate check, I refused to cash it. Screw them. This time I will cash it and donate it to the ndp. I will spoil my ballot, unless this BS stops.

I suppose next you will want the wealthy to park their yachts. The Bahamas are so nice this time of the year.

I also have a $100 cheque. 1 1/2 tanks of petrol later I'm outta cash. But the oil tank to heat the house is empty, that's a $1.42/ltr hit on a 1200 ltr tank. Next year if it's too expensive to run the furnace then the "heatilator" keeps us warm. Burns lots of wood, paper garbage etc, but keeps the house toasty warm.

If those were indeed the questions of the Harris-Decima poll, then the results are crocked. The question said what the tax would not apply to, but indicated neither where it would, or what the impact on consumers would be. After such loaded questions, that it still got 39 per cent opposed is not a good sign for the carbon tax crowd.

If the envirotards were honest, they'd either admit that their whole scam is about marxist socialism and destroying the "rich" (except themselves, as Orwell pointed out so susinctly, some animals are more equal than others) OR they'd admit that the only way to "reduce" our impact is to kill off the world's population and growth is in poor countries.

So, is it an economic fraud or do you exterminate the third world's poor?

Either way, it's hard to support.

More like left wing tanked thinkers.

What would we do without experts?
This from the National Post.

Experts say that people that suffer from an over-active bladder should monitor and reduce their intakes of fluid.

Fuggin' brilliant!

The Onion: Multiple Stab Wounds May Be Harmful To Monkeys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7J7UjsRqg