Dear John, (my first letter to you)
But first, some fun: I was speaking with a university-conservative group this morning. They remind me of the GOP parrots in the USA, chirp, chirp. Are they reading from the “ Rove” binder again? Just insert the topic in the yellow text blocks? You would think these whippersnappers would have some innovation to support CPC policies.
Here is our “short” “discussion” (I know these kids are only in university, but, look at the critical thinking they are asserting on CPC policies. Do they defend their leaders' action? Or, just go for the personal attacks?). I think it basically reflects your positions, use of “talking points” and your leaders' positions. Either you are “with us or against us”. Yes / No. “Good for people, bad for people”. Sounds familiar? Here are “your” “future lemmings”, in training: (I did not correct their spelling, I don't have the goodest english either).
From a comment (CUConservatives):
RT @DeanTester: RT @timhudak Ontario families continue to pay for Dalton McGuinty's of waste http://bit.ly/hjq01p #cdnpoli1
@CUConservatives I suppose you fully endorse @pmharper and his wasting our environment and tax dollars of planned F-35 fighters? #cdnpoli
@deepgreendesign why do you hate our military? @pmharper fights for the best for our soliders and it would be nice if you supported them
@CUConservativs #pmharper You are misinformed. Again. I support our military, not our "leader". Learn before you spew. #iearth1st
@CUConservatives Still waiting for you response. Or is this your "cut 'n run"? I will write you an open letter. Maybe you will learn.
@deepgreendesign Busy actually working, not worrying about dellusional environmental activists. Best of luck!
@CUConservatives Let me know when you have time to be educated about toxic pollution. I feel it is important. Do you?
@CUConservatives You think toxic pollution is delusional thought? Would you like to debate that statement in a public forum?
Nice work conservative youth! Your future looks "dirty and expensive". Like it is in the USA. I seem to always get this "conclusion" in a discussion. They disappear, without support assertions with science.
Anyways, John let's get back to this. Nice tie! Did you know that the colour green is the most toxic colour, perfect! More PR damage control? I digress.
I saw the defence of your party policy on the environment: " Eye of the beholder", Three Fossil awards John, the green market is growing. That means it is an economic opportunity. What is my big fuss? Lowering operating costs, innovation opportunity and reducing energy consumption. These things let corporations "give you" more taxes? Is that good? You answer that.
The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-thank, did a study on the subject. What they found is simply mind-boggling. They calculated that the US spent between $30 to $60 billion (with a 'b') a year safeguarding oil supplies in the Middle East during the 1990s, even though its imports from that region totaled only about $10 billion a year during that period. A more comprehensive study that includes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and other oil protection services (the coast guard is clearing shipping lanes and doing navigational support to oil tankers, etc) shows that actual subsidies to Big Oil are between $78 to $158 billion (again, with a 'b') per year.
So, in the US a barrel of oil costs a minimum of about: $450. This reflects the market price, taxes and the taxes spent to "get the oil". These are called "Free Markets", John, seems too high? Yes, best stick to the "market cost". You seem to be thinking "market" and not "environment".
Of course, Kevin O'Leary thinks that " Free Markets" work best. I hope he felt like me, letting the big banks fail first. I am not sure. I believe in making clean money. Lots of it. As an aside, he is investing in AE. Some of it is terrible, but, maybe he will find a winner ( after many losses ). Looks like Kevin needs a course in complex math. I was laughing at his "investments" in "new technology". Looks like Kevin got screwed out his money on a few "new ideas". Thanks for the laughs, Kevin. Keep it up?
You have to look at the "total costs" of things. The "environment cost" does not see "Free Markets" as a definition of value. The environment is the tangible asset we share. The environmental costs are complex in nature, not a line graph.
Your weak stance of "stepping back", in retreat, and waiting for an "international agreement" ( which you will not accept, regardless?) is another cowardly move. Your party lacks leadership and "balls". I see no progressive CPC plan. I see no proof ( the scientific kind ) that you ignore the environment. You need to get that information from your "advisers" ( would be cool to only have leaders that are experts, like in China, but really, how well is China doing? They use science, but, not human rights and in GOP talk "DO YOU HATE HUMAN RIGHTS?" ;). But, you should listen to what the scientists have to report (as in a scientific report) not "your" truthiness.
So, where is your science, John? Is it peer reviewed? Is it internationally accepted?
Anyways, John, let's move on. Did you know that some European A.E. Companies have " backlogs" for their equipment? That is called equity, or "money in the bank". You can tax that stuff! Called "tax revenues".
I know the tarsands have a backlog, but, what about all the pollution and water consumption in the prairies now? This is acceptable to "your model environment"? What is the total "environmental cost" of tarsands oil versus the total "environmental costs" of geothermal energy? Please, break it down for me! I already have and I want to check my assumptions. I want to see you demonstrate real mathematics, not "O'Leary" math.
Regardless of the "total environmental costs", let's move forward.
Our government has a dirty secret. It is called toxic pollution. Mountains of science showing that we need to have "greener" solutions: solutions that create less toxic waste.
I know you are "focused" on climate change now, but, what are you doing to control toxic pollution from Canada's energy, industrial and residential processes? Oh yes, and some toxic commodities coming in from foreign producers with no legal health standards. Seems like China is innovating and improving its "toxic accountability". Why? To make more money? "Innovation = money"?. Money for the corporation, and "tax money" for the government, through taxes.
What about the sale of AECL? Will the new owners clean up the mess, or will Canadians "flip the bill" (can we make a side bet)?
You seem to be focused on climate change, so, let's start there. How can you prove that your actions will not impact negatively on our environment and our "Free Markets"? Are you moral enough to be "steering the car" now, John?
You regress from progress, waiting for other nations to lead? Canada was a leader, now "we" are "a joke", because your party cannot lead.
Are you afraid of making money (GOP:101 lemming-parroting)?
How will "your stance" impact the image of Canadian "climate expertise" and their "global business models"? I can tell you from experience, negatively. You are hurting companies and damaging reputations: to endorse "your big tar-patch bonanza". Your "yes/no" arguments rarely include innovation. Why is that? Do you think Canadian experts cannot figure out these problems? They, in most cases, already have.
By cowering from the challenge, we all face, you make us look "weak and ignorant", internationally (I guess someone did go to the "Bush motivational" sessions? Did you get the GWB bobblehead and the new Rove "How to" pamphlet?).
You are afraid to lead. Leadership means innovation, here are some innovations by Canadians. Innovations brought on by opportunity and profit. Let me know if you find anything that has made lots of money ( except the Polo Vaccine, Salk gave it "free", to help people. What a man!)
P.S. - Do you use a Blackberry? By using one, are you demonstrating "innovation brings increased efficiency to all"?
P.S.S. - will you deliver me quality?