BC’s choice - carbon tax or cap-and-trade

For the upcoming BC election (May 12th), a major campaign issue seems to be "which do you prefer, carbon tax or cap-and trade?" Gordon Campbell’s (idiot) Liberals are defending their unpopular carbon tax against the (idiot) NDP who prefer cap-and-trade.

Lorrie Goldstein hits the nail on the head beginning with this thought:

To paraphrase Kate McMillan at smalldeadanimals.com ... you're supposed to pray for an asteroid, not pick a favourite.

Lorrie goes on to explain how both amount to more or less the same thing and, worse, they’ve been tried and failed:

Norway has had a carbon tax since 1991, which Statistics Norway concluded in 2002 had only a very minor impact on emissions. ... Statistics Norway researchers concluded "extensive tax exemptions" was a major reason for the "relatively small effect" of carbon taxes on emissions.

... Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme -- saw emissions rise in its first three years of operation, until they dropped last year not because of cap-and-trade, but due to the global recession.

... In Europe's cap-and-trade markets, governments gave industries free credits to emit carbon dioxide totalling more than their existing emissions. ... This led to skyrocketing energy prices (emitters passed along the costs of the credits to consumers as if they had paid for them) and increasing emissions...

... Despite what politicians claim, neither carbon taxes nor cap-and-trade will lead to more "green" jobs. ...Spain ...has been touted as a model for the world by Barack Obama. Problem is, Spain lost at least 2.2 jobs in other sectors of the economy for every "green" job government spending created and only one in 10 of those jobs is permanent.

This according to a recent study by economics professor Gabriel Calzada Alvarez and three colleagues at Madrid's Juan Carlos University. ... The estimated cost to taxpayers for every "green" job created was 571,138 euros or over $900,000 Canadian.

Thank you, Lorrie! Now, if only we could get the word out to everyone in BC. Unless the major parties get real and stop offering up their "carbon" bullcrap, you’re right - "Better pray for that asteroid".

Adam Smith was no modern liberal

American liberal Alan Wolfe tries to shoehorn Adam Smith into his definition of modern liberalism. An excellent rebuttal follows in the comments (Bulbman1066):

Nothing could be further from classical liberalism than the American "liberalism" of today. The two are polar opposites. Classical liberalism is about the flourishing of the individual and the community through the free action of individuals. Modern liberalism is about government deciding what is good for the individual and imposing its decisions by force. That is precisely what Adam Smith and all the great classical liberals opposed.

The slogan of modern liberlism is "equality", meaning not equality of opportunity but forced equality of outcome. In practice that amounts to efforts by government to hobble the more energetic and intelligent members of society so that that they don't reap "unjust" rewards. The inevitable result is the triumph of the lazy, the stupid and the mediocre. Let me modify that a bit. Under "liberalism" energetic and intelligent people do triumph, but they do so by demagoguery and dishonesty rather than by acting for the benefit of all.

Modern liberalism suffers from several problems. One is the question of legitimacy. Why should a particular class, say Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Alan Wolfe, and the faculties of the elite universities rule the rest of us? Is Nancy a countesss? Is Alan a duke?

Another problem is that the lust for leveling will likely destroy our society economically. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. Affirmative action/political correctness has trashed most of the humanities and social science departments in American universities. But hitherto math and physical science have for most part part escaped unscathed. But since the election of you- know-who the feminist mafia smells blood. They are demanding quotas in math and the hard sciences. You don’t have to have a Larry Summers size IQ to see where that will lead.

What Wolfe doesn’t understand is just how fragile are the achievements of western civilization and how large is the threat posed to those achievements by the Orwellian perversion of the definition of the liberalism.

April 15, 2009 4:00 AM

[via]

Update: From Jonah Goldberg.

Obamite apologetics and distractions

Speaking of pussies misguided wimps - wonder when/if Obama et al will find their gonads.

Victor Davis Hanson worries:

... The Obamists better be careful in their serial apologetics, "Bush did it" throat-clearing, and caving to European, Russia, Turkish, etc. agendas. Slowly, but clearly we are establishing a new atmosphere in which the old unpredictability, military preparedness, and deterrence will be lost, replaced by a touchy-feely sort of seminar discussion, laced with atonement, reaction. And then the two-bit pirates who boast "We are not afraid of the Americans" will be the least of our problems.

So does Mark Steyn:

Reuters headline ... : “Pirates Pose Annoying Distraction For Obama.”
So many distractions, aren’t there? Only a week ago, the North Korean missile test was an “annoying distraction” from Barack Obama’s call for a world without nuclear weapons and his pledge that America would lead the way in disarming. And only a couple of days earlier the president insisted Iraq was a “distraction” — from what, I forget: The cooing press coverage of Michelle’s wardrobe? No doubt when the Iranians nuke Israel, that, too, will be an unwelcome distraction from the administration’s plans for federally subsidized daycare, just as Pearl Harbor was an annoying distraction from the New Deal, and the First World War was an annoying distraction from the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s dinner plans. .........

Today's word: "pussy"

David Thompson picks up on a debate about the meaning of the word "pussy" which, in the comments, he says: "...I'd assumed ... (in the sense of timid, overly delicate, etc) was a corruption of “pusillanimous”.

Well, here's another opinion:

Hitchen's mea culpa to Canada

Christopher Hitchens has acknowledged being wrong in his criticism of Canada in the George Galloway affair and points to Terry Glavin for the straight goods.

Terry Glavin:

(UPDATE II: Appended to his Slate column today, Christopher writes: In my last column, it seems I may have done an injustice to the government and people of Canada in the matter of George Galloway's canceled visit to that country. For elucidation, please consult the following blog post. For my part, let me say it was not so much that Hitchens didn't do a lick of homework, but that the references he relied upon - Canada's national newspapers - are what led him astray).

Good for Hitchens.

“Obama turns left”

That’s a Globe and Mail headline. And the subheading is:

"The U.S. President is putting the state in charge of the economy in the land of free enterprise. Are the 'best and brightest' up to the task?"

Just for starters Obama isn’t "turning" left. He’s been left all along. He was the most left-leaning Senator in Congress. He campaigned on a statist/socialist platform.

Secondly, what makes anyone think that the Obama administration is the "best and the brightest"?

But even if they are, the answer to the question is: NO they are NOT up to the task! Unless, of course, the task is to ruin the economy.

As Friedrich Hayek would testify, the Obama Democrats, like all socialists, suffer from "The Fatal Conceit" which will inevitably lead America further down "The Road to Serfdom".

Former Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean poo poo’d any anti-interventionist nay-saying: "I’m pretty confident. This is not rocket science". No it isn’t. Rocket science is simple-minded child’s play by comparison. Even the (presently poorly understood) climate system is simpler than national and global economies.

And the man entrusted with leading the charge down the road to Hell, Mr. "community organizer", hasn’t managed so much as a Dairy Queen franchise.

Unless Obama "turns right", America is doomed! And so, therefore, are the rest of us.

Glavin on Galloway

The George Galloway drama that has unfolded over the past week has attracted attention from every quarter. There are lots of opinions but generally people fall into three camps who contend the issue is, respectively: national security ("keep the idiot out"); free speech ("let the moron in"), or; free speech ("we want to hear our Hamas-loving hero").

Then along comes Terry Glavin who effectively clarifies matters with, of all things, some facts and logic which show that This Is Not A Story About Free Speech. This Is Not A Story About National Security. Nope, it’s about a lazy, incompetent, sensation seeking media.

Mr. Glavin kicks things off by ripping Christopher Hitchens a new one:

Hitchens is not wrong in the substance of the opinions ... It is just that they are wholly immaterial to the matter at hand. ... He didn’t do a lick of homework. He fails, and fails utterly. [It would be interesting to see a reply from the Hitch.]

And the media in general:

This is a media circus of the same sort as the midway freak shows that involve displays of Britney Spears as she’s caught driving her SUV with a suckling infant on her lap, or Amy Winehouse snorting coke in a leaked home video. Dress it up anyway you like, that is the function the Galloway rumpus-making serves the news media.

Glavin then goes on to comprehensively lay out the facts and what actually transpired. You’ve got to read the whole thing because paraphrasing won’t do it justice.

And in closing he saves some choice words for Galloway’s Canadian supporters:

George Galloway is what we used to call a fascist thug. But nowadays, his Canadian fan base, his megaphone-carriers and his booking agents include New Democratic Party MPs, Bloc MPs, the Council of Canadians, the Ottawa Peace Assembly and a legion of student leaders, trade unionists and "anti-war" activists.

Great stuff.

Though it’s hard to refute Glavin’s facts, logic and conclusions about the whole affair, one could still argue that it is still relevant to the free speech issue. It’s relevant because, in spite of the truth of the matter, there’s still a strong perception that Galloway’s speech has been suppressed (even though it wasn’t really because it was televideoed to his Canuck fans anyway). He’s gained some undeserved martyrdom. So I can’t help feeling that it may have been better to let him in and denied he and his supporters publicity. And maybe, but not likely, with more time the media would have been able to do some fact checking and get the story straight.

[via Blazing Cat Fur]