I just don’t believe Dion’s Plan is about the enviroment. To me it is about getting the 2 percent GST cut back to pay for his spending promises.

Dot says..

“Certainly, the environmental lobby in the US at the Municipal, State, and Fed level to target Alberta oilsands production has not gone unnoticed, particularly by oilsands producers.”

Any amrican saying they hate are resurce riches knowing the deal they have with NAFTA is pandering(which I understand).

Dot says…

“Nevertheless, at a State level, where many environmental decisions will be made (similar to Canada I believe), it may be a different story.”

I think your right on that but I am not a 100 percents sure on it.

Just to be frank I think the CPC stole the origanel liberal climatre change policy. And Dion to try to make him self different came up wih this crazy plan.

Who knows, intill the next election all of us ae right.

I’m not as knowledgeable on US politics as others (I still watch McLaughlin Group) and I note in the last session all predicted at least a five seat swing from Republican to Democrats in the November 2008 election (1/3 of 50 contested?), so I’m not so sure change is not underway on climate etc. One would think many Dems would be running on this platform of increased environmental awareness/responsibility.

Nevertheless, at a State level, where many environmental decisions will be made (similar to Canada I believe), it may be a different story.

Certainly, the environmental lobby in the US at the Municipal, State, and Fed level to target Alberta oilsands production has not gone unnoticed, particularly by oilsands producers.

Many producers, I suspect, may welcome a Dion-like carbon tax if asked, if they haven’t stated as much already. All can afford it – they just need the laws/regulations to implement it. Shareholders would demand less, otherwise.

If you think the Americans are going to go nuts over the enviroment you are livin in a fairy tale.

The democract congress could not even pass a bill that was similer to Harpers climate change policy.

http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812836,00.html

“Oh come on, JK, that’s a great shirt.”

LMAO, yes,yes it was…

Sandi says

” If it was, it would be implanted in the memory bank like Harper’s awful leather cowboy vest”

LOL.

Come on Sandi lets be real, nothng was as bad as that outfitt. And I am Harpermaniac.

You spout drivel about the US and NAFTA. True, Canada’s export trade is in the order of 85% to the the US, but if you took some time to try and understand trade issues, rather than taking the Pavlovian response, you might have a more enlightened view.

This Dion policy on carbon taxing imports, in my opinion, is in response to the Harper/Baird position that taking action on climate change (reducing CO2 emissions) is not worth undertaking unless China/India is involved in a post Kyoto agreement.

I doubt very highly that it has anything to do with US exports/imports, and come Can Fed election, when perhaps the direction of the US election has been decided (if it hasn’t already) we (as Canadians) may find our exports are subject to similar trade tariffs (are you familiar with California’s efforts to impose such tariff’s on Alberta oilsands production).

I don’t care to elaborate further, as this is a comment section, but someone, it appears, rang the bell, and you, by conditioned response, salivated.

Thanks for the link. This proves that Dion is moving even further to the left than the NDP — and let’s not forget that Dion’s favourite subject of study has always been Marxist.

As for the man-love, since Feschuk has now shown us the future of Dion with the Magnum Moustache of Magnificence, can you really blame him?

It all started with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift plan, which provides for a carbon tax and offsetting income-tax cuts. The trouble with this shift is that it doesn’t really do anything, or much anyway, for the environment. As other Liberals have admitted, including one Member of Parliament, the Green Shift plan is not about the environment at all but about redistributing wealth from one end of the country to the other.

Mr. Dion took quite the pounding from all sides for his plan – from Conservatives, the NDP and even environmentalists. Yet, to his credit, he soldiers on. However, the hole he has already dug for himself isn’t quite deep enough yet, so he has decided to pick up the shovel one more time to do some more digging.

As he descended deeper and deeper into his Saddam-Hussein-like hole, the lack of oxygen must have triggered some hallucinations, with some ghostly voices whispering into his ear, “Stéphane, listen to us. We have an even better idea for you that you can take to the Canadian people.”

This idea involves “carbon tariffs”, import duties slapped on products from countries that, in Mr. Dion’s estimation, don’t do enough to fight global warming. Experts in trade law and, generally, those with common sense were quick to label his latest idea as “bafflegab” and “crazy”. It is not hard to see why they would say such things.

Not only would such a move trigger a trade war with the U.S., because such tariffs would be a clear violation of the NAFTA agreement, but one with many other countries around the world as well on whose business Canada depends to keep its economy going. The U.S. would doubtless be among Mr. Dion’s first targets, even though America’s record on greenhouse gases and environmental protection has been much better than Canada’s for years, but that wouldn’t stop Mr. Dion from making contrary claims.

Those tariffs would also increase the prices of such imported goods for Canadian consumers, which is hardly welcome with the economy on its way down and inflation pushing up prices high enough as it is. Voters in Canada are usually quite malleable as long as political messages involve some lofty ideas and principles, but when they get hit in the wallet – and this is where it really hurts – even the mostly passive Canadian electorate will become agitated enough to do serious harm to any party that suggests such nonsense.

What must be really galling to Liberals is that there is no need, or justification, for Mr. Dion to be touring the country now and spreading his message. As party insiders have said, “Everything that is being discussed this summer is not being written in stone.” Why, then, go around the country and talk about hypothetical and vague ideas that are “not written in stone” and only serve to upset and frustrate everyone? Didn’t Mr. Dion’s advisers tell him that this would be counterproductive? Oh, yes, that’s right, Mr. Dion never listens to anyone.

The NDP, too, is visibly aggravated by Mr. Dion’s plans. Nathan Cullen, an NDP MP, said Mr. Dion is “jeopardizing the entire climate debate by making it look ridiculous.” Indeed, he is. It remains to be seen how long Mr. Dion can go on like this before Green Party leader Elizabeth May sends him a Dear-John letter to inform him that their friendship is over. For it seems that the biggest stumbling block to the debate on global warming and environmental issues is none other than Mr. Dion himself.

Again, by my count, the Tories have been very good at keeping their major promises, and pretty good at keep their less major promises.

Don’t quite know where this notion comes from that the Tories are major promise breakers. Although I will admit that Harper did his best to raise expectations on that score by howling and screaming about anything and everything while leading the opposition.

OK, so we’re now full-blown into “your guy too” territory, and off-topic, too. Yay.

Liberal, Tory, same old story.

And we all lived happily ever after.

Well, if that is the idea then it doesn’t smack of protectionism a bit. It smacks of it alot. Why don’t we level the playing field for the cost of labour and other tax rates while we’re at it. Why should we only level the playing field for carbon emissions?

The Liberals would be much better to argue that this a way of pressuring China, Brazil, India, Korea, etc. to actually do something about carbon emissions. The problem with that argument is that it assumes a Canada going it alone strategy would effect decisions in China or India (is Canada that significant of a trading partner?). If they want to go that way, they would be much better off in saying that they will negotiate with other nations who have moved to price carbon to develop a carbon tariff that is the same for all participating countries.

But Dion and his recent plans really take the cake when it comes to having no common sense at all.

I think you (and other media) are making a mistake when you talk about the “permanent tax on everything”. I don’t think anybody outside Ottawa other than close political observers have heard that. “Green Shift” and “Carbon Tax” are the only lines that the average person I know seems to remember.

As for the guy from Norway, that doesn’t need to be on a card. That is just for the media and third-party organizations to hear. Once they are convinced, most people will just trust their judgement in the resulting reports and endorsements.

Michael Hart, a professor, calls Dion’s ideas on that “bafflegab” and even “crazy”.

Dion, it seems, wants to start a “World Trade War”.

It all depends on the rate. I guess the idea is to make a level playing field for companies producing products in Canada. Seeing as the carbon tax, at least for the first 4 years, is very small, I would expect the tariffs would be equally small.

As well, if he Dion implements the tariff on Chinese goods, the prices of all that cheap tat we get will go up. How will that help Dion’s poverty plan?

No, this is the article I was trying to link to (which, yes, I mention on my blog. lol):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080725.wdion25/BNStory/National/home

please please please please please please please please?

Does it have a tariff or not? Does it have an income tax cut or not?

Which parts of it are going to be edited by whom and when?

Will the caucus get back to us tomorrow? I’m confused.

Also, for jwl & others: I’m just a maudit anglophone at heart, but I find Dion comes off as very intelligent and professorial in the (admittedly few) French interviews I’ve seen him in. Eloquent, well-stated sentences, etc. That works for some people, not for others, just like it would if you sounded like a professor in English.

Or, you know, if you sounded like the former Director of a Human Rights Policy research center.