Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Harper: We Can't Do Something We Were Already Doing

The Sleveen Institute has an interesting post, which details the Harper absurdity:
Harper is on record saying that:

"We can't tell the Canadian population to heat its homes one-third less of the time"

the Liberal Programs appear to be effective according to U.K. Officials who intend on delivery their report to Harpers doorstep . So if the Liberals manged to get homes to reduce, why is Harper saying its not possible?

"EnerGuide for houses, actually averaged a 35 per cent energy reduction on residential heating costs".

''In fact, the Canadian government was helping Canadians reduce their energy bills by one-third, and they were doing it on a daily basis, and (Harper) cancelled the program.''


Isn’t it amazing for Harper to reference a number that just happens to equal the results of a program the Tories shelved. Has any reporter asked Harper why he cancelled an objectively effective program? Isn’t such an initiative an example of “made in Canada”, completely separate from the concerns about Kyoto. Harper’s comment serves as the best example of the Conservatives nonsensical approach. Killing the Energuide program was inexcusable, and I have yet to hear the media effectively reveal the double-speak. Hopefully Harper’s comments bite him in the ass, because the hypocrisy is staggering.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dude,

I totally agree with you if, the people who conserved energy did it by not heating their home 1/3 of the time.

Get it? The key word that you missed was "time". You conviently misread what Harper said to try to make him look stupid.

I'm noticing a trend that what Harper says, and what people say he says isn't the same. People also talk about his motivations, and his likes and dislikes as if they know his innermost thoughts. Surprise, surprise, when people speak of Harper's innermost thoughts Harper seems like a terrible, scary character. But, when he I hear him speak I get a different impression.

Maybe I'm just stupid.

Lee

Anonymous said...

Lee Dude,

Maybe you just don't want to get it. Harper did say something stupid, or at least insulting. Has anyone asked his "new" government (talk about stupid terms) to ask people to heat their homes 1/3 less of the "time." Duh, NO.

However, the causes of climate change could be mitigated in any number of ways, including reducing energy consumption which result in more "so-called" Greenhouse gasses.

So, Harper cancels a program that results in 1/3 less home energy consumption and then turns around and mouths some excuse that we "can't" possibly ask people not to heat their homes 1/3 of the time.

Is he stupid or is he just misrepresenting facts (equating apples and oranges) to justify a bad decision.

You decide. Because it is pretty clear that it's one or the other.

I'm betting he deliberately mis-states things to justify his government's position. Of course, I've had plenty of experience with that, having watched Bushy down here in the states for the past 6 years.

OttawaCon said...

You completely misrepresent the reason for cancelling Energuide, distort its painfully limited successes, ignore its costs, and then assume it is infinitely scaleable.

The reason that Energuide was cancelled is because it was $44 million per annum program that spent $15 million on audit costs. In all, it spent $100 million or so to produce just 2.2 Mt of GHG reductions, a putative price of $50 per tonne. Someone trying to kill the Kyoto Accord would not have the cohones to use that price figure, and you are endorsing this program as a success?!?

At that price, Canada's current estimated Kyoto gap of 1172 Mt is worth over $58 billion. If that is anything like the reality, Kyoto is dead.

bigcitylib said...

44 Million per annum is a pittance. The program was cancelled because Harper figured nobody would give a shit. He figured wrong. Watch it come back in the new green legislation. Probably in a form different enough to incur all sorts of start-up costs all over again.

Anonymous said...

Would Ottawacon like to tell us the cost per tonne of GHG saved from Harper's subsidy for transit passes? Then we could compare it to Energuide - might be informative...

OttawaCon said...

Anonymous,

By my calculation, about $2000. Friggin' insane to try to call it a GHG mitigation program. It may be good policy for other reason, but abatement it ain't.

The counter is this - do you seriously believe that we are choosing between $50 or $2000? I just don't believe our actual cost of abatement is that high - we are the least carbon efficient developed economy in the world, how can our abatement also be among the most expensive?

Bigcity,

44 million is a pittance, but so is 2.2 Mt. Bad policy is bad policy, regardless of party.

Steve V said...

Typical Conservative approach, criticize existing efforts and offer NOTHING as an alternative. You guys are a joke, you really are.

OttawaCon said...

Wow, from 'objectively effective' to giving up on even trying to defend the program, using a generic and lame ad hominem instead, all in just 7 posts.

Steve V said...

"But Lunn tipped his hand earlier this week in Parliament when he said
only 50 cents of every dollar spent by the program ended up in
homeowners' pockets.

"This program specifically was sold to Canadians as an energy-
efficiency program. ... This is not efficient. It's not effective. That is
not
how this government is going to govern.''

Supposedly, the government will use an as-yet unreleased report by
the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
to justify its decision to axe the EnerGuide program.

We do know that the federal government spent $44.3 million on
EnerGuide in 2005-06, of which $15.1 million went to the audit
contractors, $5.1 million for administration and $24.1 million to
homeowners.

By my calculation, that's closer to 55 per cent of the program's costs
going directly to homeowners. Moreover, what's the ongoing cost
saving to homeowners?

When it was introduced, the Liberals said the average $630 EnerGuide
grant would save homeowners $600 on a $2,400 annual energy bill.
That's $600 a year indefinitely for the homeowner, which more than
justifies the one-time outlay of $630 by the Canadian taxpayer."

And, what did the Commission Of The Environment eventually conclude?

You know what is lame, a party that offers nothing, yet has the audacity to criticize. The goal of the program was to reduce emissions, it succeeded in spades. Any administrative costs were a one time deal, with all the subsequent savings pure application. You can play with the numbers to rationalize the dinosaur's actions, but the real numbers suggest otherwise, backed up by people in the know, not partisan hacks. Enjoy the delusion.

bigcitylib said...

Steve V,

I wish I'd said that.

Steve V said...

bigcity

I wasn't even going to bother. The earth is round, the earth is round!

Anonymous said...

You rock Steve V!

I couldn't agree more. For example without Energuide handy things like this wouldn't exsist:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/Equipment/english/page26.cfm?PrintView=N&Text=N

Even bypassing the grants and money given to homeowners or the ongoing cost of the program, information like this for the consumer is an ever larger piece of the puzzle.

Education Canadian consumers to choose smart IS working, and why wouldn't it? Hopefully someone will ask Mr. Harper some very difficult questions about what his real intentions are in regards to environmental policy.