Can't Ignore The Facts

National Post: Carole James bets her principles, and loses
Posted: April 15, 2009, 8:30 AM

British Columbia’s perennially bizarre political culture proved true to form this week, as several high-profile environmental groups rallied around Gordon Campbell’s right-Liberal government and pledged to work against Carole James’s NDP opposition.
And we’re behind those groups, although one might well raise an eyebrow at participation in such a nakedly partisan intervention by tax-exempt charities such as the David Suzuki Foundation and ForestEthics.
It is perhaps slightly dodgy for them to issue carefully worded “apolitical” statements while piggybacking on the greater freedom properly enjoyed by other critics like the non-exempt Pembina Institute. But in any case, the overall message of this ad-hoc coalition is correct: By railing against B.C.’s carbon tax, Ms. James and the B.C. NDP are being insincere and cynical.Many mainstream environmentalists favour carbon taxes, because they discourage usage of all forms of greenhouse-gas-producing fuels, automatically distributing the economic burden according to usage. The associated economic incentives are in line with environmentalists’ goals: The more energy that people conserve, the more money they save.
But when gas prices were at their peak about a year ago, Ms. James gambled on populism instead of principle. She came out against the broad-based Campbell carbon tax, and instead advocated a cap-and-trade system that would hypothetically meet the same emissions-reductions targets, but impose the added costs only on a narrow group of industrial emitters.
By doing so, Ms. James was hoping to position herself as the champion of the little guy, and the enemy of big business. And we suppose that there are a few voters in B.C. who’ve been fooled by the gambit. But as anyone who’s studied the issue can attest, there’s no inherent economic advantage in either an adjustable carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system: Either way, the associated costs get passed down to the end user (that’s technical parlance for you and me) in one form or another. The only difference is that the cap-and-trade system — which would require close monitoring of individual purchasers and oversight of a carbon-credit exchange — involves more government tinkering and transaction costs.
By putting the overall burden on a narrower basis, moreover, James’s plan leaves more kinds of economic activity outside the incentive structure. And it depends on non-compulsory public participation in emissions cuts, which has never worked as a serious strategy and never will.
As for the consumers Ms. James is purportedly so concerned about, any potential savings would come with a cost in net jobs in the energy-producing and heavily energy-dependent sectors in B.C. So says Simon Fraser University enviro-economist Marc Jaccard, who modelled the NDP plan and estimates that 60,000 jobs would be sacrificed in the long term as a result of “the extremely high [greenhouse gas] prices that would be faced by B.C.’s industrial emitters under the NDP policies.”
Mr. Jaccard’s numerical assumptions might be questionable, but his unimpeachable broader point is that there can be no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to emissions reductions — notwithstanding socialist fantasies about making the “bad guys” pay. What governments can do, if they are serious about reducing carbon output, is to reduce the associated transaction costs and make sure there is an efficient payoff for the pain caused to consumers — which is more or less what Mr. Campbell’s government tried to do in the first place.
As bizarre as B.C.’s political circus has become, there is a larger lesson here for Canada’s mainstream left, which remains torn between its populist and elitist camps. While a specious environmental policy based on sticking it to the oil companies may play well on talk radio or in push polls, left-wing opinion-makes such as David Suzuki know better. And as this week’s goings on attest, they aren’t willing to keep their mouths shut just for old-time’s sake.
In the run-up to the May 12 B.C. election, many pundits have been speculating as to whether Mr. Campbell could win a third term for his Liberals. His odds have always been strong. But with the left running against itself, we don’t see how he can lose.

National Post


To me this is saying, the Liberals are prolly gonna be the next elected government in BC, sooo question is...do you want to elect a NDP MLA?? Troy Sebastian would be an opposition MLA with no experience for our voice way out here so far away from Victoria. If that happens, we will never get anything out here in the Valley ever again. Do you think the Liberal government will give a shit what an opposition MLA way out in the boonies is saying, let alone asking for??? uhhh No. Ask the West Kootenays how much attention they've had with an opposition MLA.
Bill Bennet has been a strong MLA, and has done more for this area then the history of MLAs in this riding - (prolly cuz he's strong and loud, and a shoots-from-the hip kinda guy)
Click here for list of accomplishments.

Be careful what you wish for Fernie.