Some Interesting News

doppler_logox2_outline

A NEW DIRECTION

We have some exciting news this week.

I have been writing my Listen Up! Blog since the beginning of the year and have been delighted with the number of viewers and loyal readers. At the same time I have been working with some other folks to develop a full online News Source for Huntsville.

I am pleased to announce that Huntsville Doppler will launch on September 8th. Our Publisher is Elizabeth Rice, former owner of the Huntsville Forester, and we have a great team who we will introduce when we launch.

The purpose of Huntsville Doppler is to bring you local news that is relevant and timely, with an emphasis on stories that dig deeper. We hope that you will choose it as your source to find out what is happening in our community.

As of September 8th, my Blog will merge with Huntsville Doppler and you will find it there in the “Opinion” section. It will continue to be informative and provocative.

Please take a moment to sign up for the Huntsville Doppler mailing list – It is easy to do. Just go to www.doppleronline.ca/huntsville. When you get there, you can view our promo video. We also ask you to enter your e-mail address where indicated. This will allow you to receive notifications from Huntsville Doppler, similar to how they were sent for my blog notifications. There is no charge for this and you may win a prize as we are giving away an Apple iPad Air!

Please log in and Sign up. I will appreciate it and everyone at Huntsville Doppler would like the opportunity to provide the News at the standard of quality you deserve.

image001Duffy and Cheese.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?

Christie Blatchford wrote a great article in the National Post recently that really got my attention. My Liberal friends will think I am paranoid but I am smelling a very large rat in terms of what is actually happening at the Duffy Trial.

First let’s look at what it is all about. Duffy was found by a Senate Committee to have charged expenses to the taxpayer that he should not have. The RCMP investigated and charged Duffy with Fraud. These are the only charges being tried at the Duffy Extravaganza.. However, why Nigel Wright wrote a cheque to cover Duffy’s expenses, what the Prime Minister knew and when, and who else knew, seems to be taking up the majority of this lengthy trial and certainly the media are giving it almost drooling coverage. However, none of these things are illegal and no charges in relation to them have been laid.

At its worse, this so called scandal is about how the Prime Ministers office handled the Duffy affair. There were no laws broken and no money disappeared. It pales in comparison to the Sponsorship Scandal under Prime Minister Chretien or for that matter, in comparison to the more than a million dollars illegally charged to taxpayesr by current NDP members of Parliament. So what is really going on here?

Well Christie Blatchford has raised a very interesting question. She asks: ” Given the Prince Edward Island Senator’s (Duffy) professed impecuniousness back in 2013 – he told the Prime Minister’s then chief of Staff,Nigel Wright, he didn’t have the money to repay $90,000 worth of expenses, even if he was inclined- how on earth is he paying for his very experienced and thus very expensive lawyer, Don Bayne? …..And the answer is, Duffy almost certainly isn’t”

Don Bayne is a highly regarded Lawyer and very much a part of the Ottawa Establishment. He has been representing Senator Duffy since the Fall of 2013 and the trial itself has gone on for months with no end in site. His bill, including expenses would be well over a million dollars. And so, the question is fair. Who is paying Mike Duffy’s Legal bill? Is Mr. Bayne doing it for free and if so why? Is someone else footing the bill and if so why?

This is an important question because it could explain why the trial is less focussed on the fraud charges against Duffy than it is on what happened in the Prime Ministers office. In my view if it were just about the fraud charges, the trial would have been over weeks ago.

Is it at all possible that people or organizations that want the Duffy Trial to last as long as possible and also have it focus on the Prime Minister as much as possible, are footing Mr. Duffy’s very expensive legal bills? The only way we will really know is if someone comes clean and tells us exactly who is paying Duffy’s legal expenses. Surely that is at least as important as knowing who wrote the cheque to cover his improper Senate expenses!

LET’S DEAL WITH REAL ELECTION ISSUES

It is too bad that the Duffy trial is preventing issues that really matter from getting the exposure and discussion they deserve during the election campaign. Hugh Holland, a Professional Engineer and a Community Activist, has written an interesting article on climate change and the economy which I am happy to reproduce here. Remember, I encourage comment and debate. Simply click on the bubble at the top right of my Blog.

Politics, Energy, the Environment, and the Economy

By: Hugh Holland

“The federal election should not be decided by the petty mistakes from which no party is immune, but by which party is offering the best approach to the most important issues; reducing carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, while maintaining an economy that can support good government services.

The NDP would establish a nation-wide cap-and-trade system in which a central carbon trading authority (a government body) would establish a total cap (allowance) on carbon emissions, allocate a portion of that cap to all major sources of emissions in the form of one permit for each current tonne of CO2 emitted, and then proceed to lower that assigned cap every year until emission targets are met.

Cap-and-trade is complicated but here is an attempt to explain it. Firms that can beat their cap can make money by selling permits at a market price of $X per tonne. Firms that emit more than their ever-reducing allowance would have to buy more permits at the market price. The transfer of permits is known as a trade and is administered by the Central Carbon Trading Authority. States and provinces can protect strategic industries by issuing free permits to them. In theory, a surplus of funds created by more firms buying than selling would be used to fund carbon reduction projects.

Cap-and-trade enables governments and firms to plan ahead to meet targets. But Quebec and Ontario Liberals are already in the midst of joining California’s cap-and trade scheme. Would the other provinces be required to join the scheme initiated by California, or will Quebec and Ontario switch to an all-Canadian scheme? Would the Central Trading Authority with thousands of bureaucrats be located in California, Quebec, Toronto, or Ottawa? Would every State and Province insist on having their own branch office with their own share of the administration jobs? How many firms would negotiate their cap saying it was set too low because of past circumstances and will be impossible under new circumstances? How many firms will curtail growth to avoid having to buy permits? The system rewards those who have made less prior effort to reduce. Firms that have already made major emission reductions would have less opportunity to meet lower targets. For example, Ontario uses less than 10% fossil fuels for electricity generation while California still uses 65% fossil fuels. Therefore by meeting its target, California has more opportunity to draw money from Ontario. There would be conflicts and legal challenges over accuracy of reporting, over which industries could be protected with free allowances, and whether or not such protections violate provisions of NAFTA.

The Liberals and the Green Party would create a national carbon tax. The Liberals would allow it to be administered by the provinces. While a carbon tax is more simple than cap-and-trade, it would require significant changes to federal and provincial tax codes and it does not provide a stable planning base. Its effectiveness is heavily influenced by ever-changing global commodity prices. For example, recent low global oil prices have rendered the BC carbon tax of 4 cents per liter totally ineffective in encouraging people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. If Canada were to implement a carbon tax independent of the USA (our biggest trading partner) many industries would be at a serious competitive disadvantage.

The Conservative Party would strengthen regulations on both production and use of energy. Canada is already the second lowest user of coal among industrialized countries. Recent federal regulations will phase out or mitigate our few remaining coal-fired power plants. Vehicle regulations require the doubling of vehicle fuel economy by 2025, and provide a stable planning base for both manufacturers and buyers, unaffected by fluctuating gasoline prices.

95% of Canada’s oil production comes from Alberta. Emissions from oil production are being reduced by Alberta’s unique program in which major emitters are required to achieve carbon reduction targets or buy carbon offsets that are used to fund carbon reduction projects within Alberta. It is relatively simple, effective, and free of inter-provincial conflict. Alberta plans to double the price of carbon offsets.

Canada has the world’s second lowest average temperature and most emissions from natural gas come from heating residential and commercial buildings. The most efficient way to reduce those emissions is to strengthen the provincial building codes.

The Conservatives would establish additional carbon reduction measures for oil and gas production in concert with the USA, so that Canadian oil and gas companies and the important revenues they provide to all provinces are not jeopardized.

Some environmentalists claim that 33% of the world’s oil must remain in the ground by 2050 in order to keep global warming below 2 degrees C. Canada’s fair share would be to leave 57 of our 173 billion barrels in the ground. Planned production rates of 4.5 million barrels per day would leave 116 billion barrels or 67% in the ground by 2050. But more pipelines are needed to enable Canada to be a reliable and safe supplier of the oil that Canada and other countries will need until the global fleet of 2 billion petroleum-fueled vehicles, heavy equipment and portable tools can be replaced by 2050.

In the meantime, the Energy East pipeline could eliminate the outflow of $60 million dollars per day that is currently going to buy imported oil for eastern Canada, and could make Canada truly self-sufficient in Energy. $60 million dollars per day equates to 200,000 new direct and indirect jobs in Canada. All except the Green party claim to support the Energy East pipeline provided environmental assessments and protection are state-of-the-art. The current environmental assessment process was developed by experts over many years and many past governments. It would be very difficult to point to a better process in any other country. Liberal and NDP plans to revamp the process would delay construction by several years with only marginal if any real improvement in environmental protection, and would cause Canada to miss out on the benefits of supplying our fair share of global oil and gas needs.

In summary, emissions from producing and using coal, oil, and natural gas can be reduced by regulation, without the intrusion, complexity and administrative cost of cap-and trade or carbon tax regimes. Contrary to the hype, it is not clear that such regimes have worked effectively anywhere else. Ontario eliminated coal-based electricity without either carbon tax or cap-and-trade. They just did it. ”

AND DON’T FORGET……

Sign up for Huntsville Doppler at www.doppleronline.ca/huntsville !

Hugh Mackenzie

Join the discussion:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. Please ensure you include both your first and last name and abide by our community guidelines. Submissions that do not include the commenter's full name or that do not abide by our community guidelines will not be published.

0 Comments