Monday, October 03, 2005

Suzuki foundation slams Saskatchewan (and most other provinces)

The Suzuki Foundation is criticizing Saskatchewan for increasing it's CO2 emissions by 45 per cent since 1990.

Industry and Resources Minister Eric cline defended the province, saying something like "we don't hear other provinces complaining when they are buying our oil and gas."

A great comment. But then he added that the federal government ought to be helping Saskatchewan meet its kyoto requirements. In other words, all taxpayers should be subsidizing Saskatchewan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Perhaps the Saskatchewan government shouldn't have been so quick to jump on they Kyoto bandwagon?

6 comments:

Union Member said...

They shouldn't have jumped on the old big business bandwagon with such zeal !
There is still time to temper the economy so it doesn't overheat. Better to stretch it out over the long term, as these prices are not going down over the long term but at today's rate we are headed for a price crash as demand will drop off considerably in the near future.
Saskatchewan should subsidise lower emission and energy efficient products in a large way(25-50%). Look into mandating E85 or biodiesel, start with the provinces fleet first. The benefits to out agriculture economy would be tremendous. Finally, and this is were I differ from many enviro types, build a reactor. If we can increase our provinces net output and therefore revenues. This increase in sustainable revenue could be used for debt reduction, program spending and personal tax reduction.

Shawn said...

Except for the small problem of biodiesel manufacturing creating a net energy loss compared to petroleum. This could perhaps be offset by the use of nuclear power.

As regards the "economy overheating" that is the fauous type of thinking that is very good at creating severe recessions that will ruin the economy. Central planning has never worked in any economy best to avoid that swamp.

Union Member said...

Only if they are running on petrol are they negative based.Your also comparing vehicle emmisions vs electricity generation emmissions.
This would decrease both and have a net increase in electricity generation surplus.Creating a real increase in revenue and not mention cheap power.

Shawn said...

My understanding is that the energy required to grow the ethanol source, transport it, refine it, etc is substantially higher than the amount required for standard petroleum processing. Add in the lower amount of energy released via combustion per unit for ethanol vs petroleum and it would require a substantial shift in technology to make it economically feasible.

Union Member said...

Like I said, only if the machinery is running on petrol. If it is running on E85/Bio-diesel, or even hybrid, it is not. That is just criticism from oil companies.
No one mentioned central planning, and your constant references to totalitarian regimes is despicable and the equivalent of me comparing the CTF to the SS or you a brown shirt. It is unnecessary and non sequitur.

Shawn said...

Central planning does not have to be the pervasive type most people associate with the USSR, North Korea, etc. It can be as innocuous as what occurs in Saskatchewan. Government starts subsidizing certain industries with tax money from other areas, picking favorites within sectors, and so on. All of these actions subvert the market and true competition. As well, these businesses typically start to get levels of governmental oversight (direct or indirect) which inhibits their ability to effectively compete. He who pays the piper calls the tune, so if the gov't is your sugar daddy you jump when it says jump.

A more direct answer is that most of the policies you are advocating have been attempted in many of the areas mentioned. Good intentions are great, but they do not equal good results. They failed becuase the underlying premises behind the policy are fatally flawed. What makes you think that these policies can succeed here?

CTF You Tube Channel

Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box