"Green" Liberals

[R1830]

Anyone else notice our champions of the environment are using a 737-200 vs the Conservatives Airbus. Kind of makes you wonder who exactly does care about the world, or at least who is dumb enough to say they do and then charter the most fuel hungry aircraft in the country for its size.

[sugarfree]

Did they not have to have an "unscheduled" stop at YUL..

Do as I say, Not as I do...

I am surprised Dion did not charter anything from Air France..

[mattedfred]

the media reported that dion is offsetting the carbon footprint of his aircraft while harper is not

perhaps it was easier for harper to charter the AC airbus as he knew about the election call in advance

maybe he tipped layton off as well

i think they all should have chartered a 705

[tellyourkidstogetarealjob]

MONTREAL - The Liberal party's campaign convoy was grounded Tuesday night when its aging plane was forced to land in Montreal.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's 29-year-old Boeing 737 leased from Air Inuit was en route from Sherbrooke, Que., to London, Ont., when it made an unexpected stop shortly after 8 p.m. at Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport.

The pilot told passengers over the loudspeaker that something was wrong with the plane and he needed to land for repairs.

Dion was confident his busy Wednesday schedule, which includes an education-related announcement at the University of Western Ontario in London, would move ahead as planned.

"It's what we call in French a contretemps (setback), but no more than that," the Liberal leader told reporters, more than an hour after the aircraft landed.

"I'm sure we'll be in London on time and I will have the opportunity to deliver what will be a key speech for me and for the country.

"There's nothing more important than to help our youth be competitive in the world, to have their talents and skills developed in top-class universities and colleges."

Liberal campaign spokesman Mark Dunn said one of the aircraft's two generators was losing power, so the pilot decided to land as a precaution.

At first, Dunn said passengers, including Dion, Bob Rae, Liberal staffers and journalists, would likely stay in Montreal overnight.

Later, those on board were told they would be transferred onto an 11:30 p.m. flight to London aboard Porter Airlines.

A relaxed Dion came to the back of the plane as it sat near a row of hangars and spoke with journalists for about 20 minutes.

He talked about his outlook for the campaign.

"I'm working for a majority. I'm working for a Liberal government that Canadians will support," Dion said, as he stood in the aisle with microphones and cameras in his face.

"I'm very realistic. You need to have conviction to make changes that will be good for the country and good for your fellow citizens."

Trudeau airport is adjacent to Dion's home riding of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville.

Journalists and politicians alike were in good spirits waiting it out on the tarmac and taking it all in stride.

Shortly after landing, flight attendants offered passengers snacks, cans of cold beer and drinks, including wine, screwdrivers and Caesars.

"I love it here," mused Rae, who mingled with reporters. "I love Montreal. I love runways - I'm happy."

The Liberals have been criticized for renting the old, gas-guzzling plane for the duration of the campaign.

********************************************************************************************

Having their generator "lose power" is symbolic of the whole campaign for them.

[R1830]

Buy all the carbon credits you want, you are still consuming a fuel, why not charter something more efficient AND buy credits.

[Topspin]

Buy all the carbon credits you want, you are still consuming a fuel, why not charter something more efficient AND buy credits.

Because Green Shift really means shifting Money away from consumers.

[sugarfree]

Because Green Shift really means shifting Money away from consumers.

No the Lieberals, never never I say

[Wilbur]

And predictably, their carbon off set money is going to toward the purchase of votes in Quebec.

[mattedfred]

Buy all the carbon credits you want, you are still consuming a fuel, why not charter something more efficient AND buy credits.

i agree but why aren't the conservatives offsetting at all according to the media anyway?

they're all buying votes

harper feels that he doesn't need to be seen as green to get votes so he doesn't bother

dion does but perhaps dion made a promise to air inuit in exchange for the jet?

[Spokes]

How does the atmosphere know that you have bought carbon credits, and adjust its co2 content accordingly?

[Icebound]

How does the atmosphere know that you have bought carbon credits, and adjust its co2 content accordingly?

Are you serious?

Its easy.

It sees the wind farm that your money has built, and the few thousand people using electricity from it, thus closing down the local coal-fired plant.

It sees the few thousand trees that your money has planted, who eat up a few tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide and replace it with oxygen, during the course of their normal growth process.

etc., etc. etc.

[Spokes]

How does the atmosphere know that you have bought carbon credits, and adjust its co2 content accordingly?

Are you serious?

Its easy.

It sees the wind farm that your money has built, and the few thousand people using electricity from it, thus closing down the local coal-fired plant.

It sees the few thousand trees that your money has planted, who eat up a few tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide and replace it with oxygen, during the course of their normal growth process.

etc., etc. etc.

I don't see alot of all that happening. I don't see alot of wind farms popping up, and even if they were, don't the coal fired plants just open in someplace else, China maybe? Trees, Logging companies have been planting them for years, there is more forrested areas in the world now than there ever have been. (I have been told, I could not find a reference for this so I could be wrong on that point)

But assuming all this good activity has been happening out of my sight, shouldn't it happen anyways with driving around in an outdated gas guzzeling aviation equivelant of an SUV. Afterall, the damage is still being done. It sounds to me like alot of rationalization so they can fell okay about themselves.

[Dust Devil]

But assuming all this good activity has been happening out of my sight, shouldn't it happen anyways with driving around in an outdated gas guzzeling aviation equivelant of an SUV. Afterall, the damage is still being done. It sounds to me like alot of rationalization so they can fell okay about themselves.

Carbon credits have two benefits. It makes the wealthy with extreme excess cash feel good about themselves and it makes the socialist hippies smile because money is shifting from the rich to the poor. The only people who are hurt are the middle class. But who cares about them anyway. They should feel guilty for being middle class.

[Spokes]

Kinda figured somthing like that. Thanks.

[Topspin]

How does the atmosphere know that you have bought carbon credits, and adjust its co2 content accordingly?

Are you serious?

Its easy.

It sees the wind farm that your money has built, and the few thousand people using electricity from it, thus closing down the local coal-fired plant.

It sees the few thousand trees that your money has planted, who eat up a few tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide and replace it with oxygen, during the course of their normal growth process.

etc., etc. etc.

Popular opinion would lead one to believe that 90% of that money likely disappears en route, at least if it's anything like African charities.

I don't know much about the subject though.

I do know that Carbon tax is stupid, it might have some believability if truckers shipping food and essentials were exempt. But as it stands it is nothing but an enormous cash cow for the government.

[Spokes]

Not only that, I believe that it is un-sustainable.

Lets assume for a minute that it was implemented, and that it was working. CO2 emissions radically reduced. Since this is the tax base to run the country, where will the governement get the revenue need. Oh wait, I know - raise taxes.

As far as I can tell, in the big picture this can only work if CO2 emisions do not reduce.

[Icebound]

I don't see alot of all that happening. I don't see alot of wind farms popping up, and even if they were, don't the coal fired plants just open in someplace else, China maybe? ......

You don't see them popping up here because North American business environment is still not making it friendly for them here.

Try Scandinavia. So North American "green" money.... instead of being used in North America... is flying off to help them close down THEIR coal-fired plants.

As for the new ones "someplace else". Those will open anyway. What your offset money is doing is closing down SOME. Which is better than closing down NONE.

[Icebound]

Popular opinion would lead one to believe that 90% of that money likely disappears en route, at least if it's anything like African charities.

AFRICAN charities?

How about AMERICAN charities.... Like charities who spend 90 percent on administration, there are ... no doubt ... "carbon-offset" companies who do similar. But hey! It gives somebody a job, no? Isn't that the free-enterprise way?

I do know that Carbon tax is stupid, it might have some believability if truckers shipping food and essentials were exempt. But as it stands it is nothing but an enormous cash cow for the government.

A carbon tax is all about the future. Governments NEED cash cows. Otherwise you have no infrastructure. You aren't going to fly from a new airport today unless somebody spent a whole lot of infrastructure money YESTERDAY to build it.

The money is needed to build alternate energy infrastructures. If something is not done, the trucking industry will eventually collapse totally and spectacularly anyway.... (along with the rest of the economy) when shortages eventually spike energy prices beyond reason.

Better to bite the bullet soon and start using the money to build a serious alternate-energy industry that will produce results only years from now.


...

[Icebound]

Not only that, I believe that it is un-sustainable.

Lets assume for a minute that it was implemented, and that it was working. CO2 emissions radically reduced. Since this is the tax base to run the country, where will the governement get the revenue need. Oh wait, I know - raise taxes.

As far as I can tell, in the big picture this can only work if CO2 emisions do not reduce.

The same arguements were used with cigarette taxes in the nineties.... "How would the government survive if people stopped smoking and tax revenue dropped????"........


...

[Topspin]

I do know that Carbon tax is stupid, it might have some believability if truckers shipping food and essentials were exempt. But as it stands it is nothing but an enormous cash cow for the government.

A carbon tax is all about the future. Governments NEED cash cows. Otherwise you have no infrastructure. You aren't going to fly from a new airport today unless somebody spent a whole lot of infrastructure money YESTERDAY to build it.

The money is needed to build alternate energy infrastructures. If something is not done, the trucking industry will eventually collapse totally and spectacularly anyway.... (along with the rest of the economy) when shortages eventually spike energy prices beyond reason.

Better to bite the bullet soon and start using the money to build a serious alternate-energy industry that will produce results only years from now.


...

Painting a wolf brown doesn't make it a cow. Tax is tax is tax. You really think this money is building infrastructure? Over here in Vancouver, Translink earned over 300 million dollars last year by gouging users, while building the subsidized Canada line. Yet they still scream for provincial dollars at every opportunity.
How about carbon compliance tax breaks? Yes I realize they do exist, but this is what they should be promoting.

[Topspin]

Not only that, I believe that it is un-sustainable.

Lets assume for a minute that it was implemented, and that it was working. CO2 emissions radically reduced. Since this is the tax base to run the country, where will the governement get the revenue need. Oh wait, I know - raise taxes.

As far as I can tell, in the big picture this can only work if CO2 emisions do not reduce.

The same arguements were used with cigarette taxes in the nineties.... "How would the government survive if people stopped smoking and tax revenue dropped????"........


...

Does anybody actually believe the government wants people to stop smoking though? If this was the case why aren't they subsidizing things like nicorette, especially when treatment for other addicts is free. Logic would lead one to believe that they are making a killing off of this, and enjoying it.

[Wilbur]

The carbon off-set companies are typically pocketing about 25% of their revenue for profit and expenses. Most, if not all of the projects they fund would be going ahead without off-set money because no business in their right mind would build something like a multi-million dollar wind farm that could not be profitable without charity from carbon off-set businesses. The reality is that carbon off-set income is pure profit for the "eco" business owner.

Carbon off-sets and taxes are nothing more than social engineering policies intended to pressure the masses into reducing their carbon emissions while making those with the right political connections wealthy. The industry is poorly regulated, and you can bet the only thing to really be created from all this will be a new class of politically connected "green" crooks. "Green" governments will buying carbon credits as a money laundering scheme. Government buys credit with tax dollars, carbon off-set business gives money to eco-business owned by member of the correct political party, eco-business employs consultants, cronies, and kids of correct political party.

There's a reason the Liberals are pushing this crap, they see another opportunity to plunder the national treasury when they get back into power.

[Spokes]

Not only that, I believe that it is un-sustainable.

Lets assume for a minute that it was implemented, and that it was working. CO2 emissions radically reduced. Since this is the tax base to run the country, where will the governement get the revenue need. Oh wait, I know - raise taxes.

As far as I can tell, in the big picture this can only work if CO2 emisions do not reduce.

The same arguements were used with cigarette taxes in the nineties.... "How would the government survive if people stopped smoking and tax revenue dropped????"........


...

Apples and oranges. This carbon tax is meant to replace to an extent income tax, thier primary revenue source. Tax on cigaretttes was just another one of those taxes that government adds on, like GST or fuel taxes.

But I do not really believe that this scheme will work anyways. It is more likely these "polluters" will simply pass on the extra cost to the consumer. When fuel costs spiked (and lets not mince words, by polluters what is really meant is everyones favorite wipping boy- the oil companies), the cost of everything here went up substancially. Nothing like increasing the price of groceries half again to help out the masses.

[xsbank]

Gotta plant a whack of trees to make up for the banning of plastic bags!

[North Shore]

there is more forrested areas in the world now than there ever have been. (I have been told, I could not find a reference for this so I could be wrong on that point)

JMHO, but I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Most of northern Europe was heavily forested 500 years ago - no longer. Likewise parts of the prairies - Red River valley and the Interlake in Manitoba come to mind. Also, vast acres of clearcuts in BC that, while replanted with small trees, are nowhere near replacing the mature forest that was there in the past.