Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Martha Hall Findlay has forsaken me!

Oh what a sad day it is at the old anthill today as I have just found out that Steve Janke over at Angry in the Great White North received an email from Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay in regards to comments she had made about Dion's carbon tax, and which Steve posted about here.
The very same comments that had I quoted in my post here a full 2 days before Steve made his post on his blog which contained a link to my original post.

FYI here is the MHF quote: "Findlay said it's impossible to calculate the emission reduction numbers at this point, "because energy prices have gone up so much, we don't know how the shift will affect consumption," she said."

Martha, why have you forsaken me for Janke? Am I not 'angry' enough to deserve an email from you, or perhaps is it because you prefer beavers who wear cute little toques over aardvarks?

I must know the truth. Why Martha, why?

----------

Update: Steve Janke linked to this post as his comments on the MHF email have been closed off. Feel free to add anything to the comments here.

Here is the email: My comments in bold

Assuming that you strive for accuracy, (If there was something inaccurate about the quote used, please let us know.)I have the following clarifications to make to one of your recent posts. You referred to comments on the Green Shift I made at an event, where I was discussing the impact of the Green Shift on the environment.

Adding a carbon tax to the burning of fossil fuels will, absolutely, have the effect of reducing emissions; I have never said otherwise. (Yes, but you have no idea how much, or even if the carbon tax will have any more affect than what the market is already doing. We do live in a northern climate and we do need to heat our homes and use electricity, so no matter how high those costs go Canadians are still going to have to use fossil fuels.)It has been demonstrated repeatedly, around the world, that adding to market forces is the most effective way to affect behaviour. ( Care to cite some examples of this with regards to CO2 emissions?) Those of us old enough remember significant fuel-reduction behaviour due to the 1970s oil crisis. ( That was the market that did this and not some feel good government policy disguised as an environment plan.)

There will be reductions in emissions from the Green Shift because we know that people will change their consumption patterns if polluting behaviours cost more. This is already occurring, to some extent, due to other factors in today’s market – namely rapidly increased oil prices. (I am glad you can see this is already occurring already because of the market. So why do you see the need to punish the poor even more by adding on more costs to them, by way of the Liberal proposed carbon tax?)The Green Shift, by adding a price on the burning of other carbon dioxide emitters, – coal is a prime and very polluting example – will reduce emissions even more. (Are you suggesting that the big coal users, like power plants, are going to burn less coal because it is going to cost them more, rather than just passing those added costs on to the consumer?)

My point is that both increased market oil prices and the imposition of a price on the burning of other fossil fuels, when working together, will reduce green-house gas emissions even further. It will, however, be difficult to determine the exact proportions of the reduction attributable to each. ( Thank you for confirming your original quote that you do not know how the carbon tax will affect consumption. And for accuracy's sake, that was the point that myself and Steve Janke made with our blog posts.)

Reducing emissions, helping people deal with immediate energy costs through significant income tax cuts, and encouraging investment in green technology and renewable energy sources, all at the same time – it sure sounds pretty good to me. (Yes it does sound good, but are you now making the promise that those tax cuts we get back are going to cover ALL of the increased costs brought on by the green shift?)

(I didn't think so. Because like emission reductions, you have no idea just what those costs are going to really be.)

Finally, a picky point perhaps, but for future reference, my last name is Hall Findlay, not just Findlay. (You are going to have to talk to Steve about that one, but as Jen pointed out in the comments; the next time you mention the PM please be sure to refer to him as Prime Minister Harper and not just Harper.)

Thank you.

Martha Hall Findlay
Member of Parliament / Députée
Willowdale
Associate Finance Critic / porte-parole associée en matière de finances



8 comments:

wilson said...

LOL
Politicians commenting on bloggers comments...blogs DO matter.

Archie said...

That's a easy question to answer, your located outside of Ontario and Quebec. Also your from Alberta which the Librano's don't care about.

Calgary Junkie said...

"... we don't know how the shift will affect consumption," she said.

Listen to Dion, interviewed by Vancouver’s Bill Good on Mon. July 14, 10 am
here.
At around the 12 minute mark, Dion says:

“… this is for the fourth year of the plan, we are expecting to have about 15 billion of revenue through the carbon tax, and it will allow us to come with these tax cuts, that will be very significant. And these numbers have not been contested, we take it from an economist, Jack Mintz, who came with a strong modelization, and it has been accepted as robust numbers, regarding the revenue we will have after the fourth year, 15 billion dollars”

So Mintz created this model which projected the $15 billion in revenues after four years. Therefore, Mintz must have made assumptions as to the amount of diesel, natural gas, heating oil, etc that will be used
nation-wide at that time. I'll bet he's even got breakdowns by province.

Given the way Dion bragged about it to Bill Good, you would think Mintz's model would be linked to in theGreenshift document.

Could it be that only a few Liberals (but not front-row, Dion backer Martha) know about Mintz's model ?

Also how can Mintz's numbers be "contested", if hardly anybody knows about them ?

MSM, for cyring out loud, start challenging Dion on these things !

Jen said...

MSM, for cyring out loud, start challenging Dion on these things !

Are you kidding!! the liberals in the MSM eyes can do no wrong Why do think BOB RAE joined the liberals; is because he knows that the MSM will never ever question him on his near-ontatio bankrupcy.
Martha is aware that Albertans know the liberals' scheme Even David Rutherford would not allow the liberals to walk away without facing some heavy duty questions from him.
Martha may not like you A A because you are smarter than she is and knows for every mouthful she utters a pile of questions comments are highlighted by you and liberals are not used to be questioned.

Anonymous said...

Mrs. Findlay knows exactly what she speaks of. It is impossible for her to calculate what the emissions reduction ,if any, will be. As anyone who has listened to her can attest she is not exactly a rocket scientist.

Jen said...

Finally, a picky point perhaps, but for future reference, my last name is Hall Findlay, not just Findlay.

I highlighted the above statement she wrote at the bottom of her letter.

Well then FINDLEY, you don't address the prime minister as HARPER STEVIE or BUSH-LIKE.

Ardvark said...

My little ego was almost totally shattered, but with a little time and the realization that I would rate MHF opinions just below that of my pet cat, has seemed to do the trick ;)

I see Steve linked up to this post as well so I had better get back to blogging.

Anonymous said...

Well then FINDLEY, you don't address the prime minister as HARPER STEVIE or BUSH-LIKE.
I think the correct usage is now:

Yo Harper!