Too Rich

Remember the economists John Baird used to backup his apocalyptic scenarios, if Canada were to keep its Kyoto commitments? Remember too, Baird touted these men as experts, credible sources, with no partisan leanings? Well you know Baird's plan is utter crap, when those SAME economists question the Green Plan:

Economists who endorsed a recent government report assessing the economic impact of achieving Canada’s international Kyoto protocol commitments are skeptical about the new Conservative approach to fighting global warming.

The government consulted six economists to validate its recent study that warned that major domestic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, undertaken to meet Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol, would cause a recession. Only one of the economists contacted by CanWest News Service declined to comment on the government's latest environmental plan because he had not yet reviewed it.

Bernard and others were skeptical about the government's plan, which requires industry to reduce the intensity of their emissions instead of making absolute reductions.

"Basically, the intensity cap and trade program for large final emitters looks like it has far too many loopholes [so-called flexibility provisions] to cause much in the way of GHG [greenhouse gas] reductions in Canada,” Mark Jaccard, a professor at B.C.'s Simon Fraser University’s school of resource and environmental management, said in an e-mail.

"It sounds tough to talk about 6% emissions-intensity reductions per year, and then 2% per year, but how much of that will actually be 'real emissions reductions?' My preliminary sense is 'not a lot.' "

The economists also suggested the government was overestimating the short-term benefits of its policies, such as the $15-per-tonne carbon tax that companies could pay into a technology fund to offset their pollution levels.

Carl Sonnen, president of Informetrica Limited, was also cautious when asked if he could validate the government's promise that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

The main difference here, these economists were given strict, and factual incomplete parameters to formulate their conclusions on Kyoto, whereas the analysis here seems completely independent. I agree Mr. Baird, and your previous quotes will support me, we should listen to what "leading economists" tell us. More proof that Baird's sham of a plan has nowhere to hide.

In other news, more wasted taxpayer money on propaganda:

Their assessment comes as the government launches a new $905,000 advertising offensive on radio stations to promote its green initiatives and respond to critics, such as environmentalist David Suzuki and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, who have called the plan a big disappointment and a fraud designed to mislead Canadians.

Let's hope that the opposition quotes some of these economists, with accompanying Baird praise, tomorrow in parliament. I predict a deep shade of red, followed by outlandish denials.